Hi Lorenzo, This seems like a very useful addition. +1 (non-binding) from my side. I echo Jeyhun's question about backward compatibility as it is not mentioned in the FLIP. Best Regards Ahmed Hamdy
On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 08:12, <lorenzo.affe...@ververica.com.invalid> wrote: > Hello Muhammet and Jeyhun! > Thanks for your comments! > > @Jeyhun: > > > Could you please elaborate more on how the new approach will be backwards > compatible? > > In the FLIP I provide how the current Factories in JDBC would be changed > with this refactor, do you mean something different? Can you be more > specific with your request? > On May 14, 2024 at 12:32 +0200, Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com>, > wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > Thanks for driving this FLIP. +1 for it. > > > > Could you please elaborate more on how the new approach will be backwards > > compatible? > > > > Regards, > > Jeyhun > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:00 AM Muhammet Orazov > > <mor+fl...@morazow.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Hey Lorenzo, > > > > > > Thanks for driving this FLIP! +1 > > > > > > It will improve the user experience of using JDBC based > > > connectors and help developers to build with different drivers. > > > > > > Best, > > > Muhammet > > > > > > On 2024-05-13 10:20, lorenzo.affe...@ververica.com.INVALID wrote: > > > > > Hello dev! > > > > > > > > > > I want to share a draft of my FLIP to refactor the JDBC connector > to > > > > > improve its extensibility [1]. > > > > > The goal is to allow implementers to write new connectors on top > of the > > > > > JDBC one for Table API with clean and maintainable code. > > > > > > > > > > Any feedback from the community is more and welcome. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kl_AikMlqPUI-LNiPBraAFVZDRg1LF4bn6uiNtR4dlY/edit?usp=sharing > > > >
