Hi,
For me, this is also one of the more confusing parts of Hop right now. An environment in the current Hop version always has exactly one project reference in its definition. On the other hand, the names of the environments must be unique in the context of the Hop installation/configuration. So from this perspective they have a reference to the local system and not to a project. Confusing ! I find especially the uniqueness of the environment names in the hop installation/configuration problematic. As long as I only work with my own system everything is ok, but if projects AND environments are shared between systems it gets confusing. To avoid duplicate use of environment names on a target system they should not be Hop installation/configuration specific but need to have a smaller namespace. For these scenarios environments that are bound to one project are much clearer. With the use of parent projects and inherited environments it should still be possible to have environments that span muiltiple projects, so we are not loosing flexibility. Cheers Peter -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Hans Van Akelyen <[email protected]> Gesendet: Dienstag 2 November 2021 09:22 An: [email protected] Betreff: Environments linked to projects or not Hi Hop enthusiasts, developers and philosophers I have had an interesting discussion with Sergio on Jira ticket HOP-3471 [1] but we would like to get a bit of a broader consensus. So the main question is: do we see an environment as something linked to a single project or are they objects that can be reused for several projects? Both approaches have pro's and con's but we need to agree on this as it would change user experience and maybe how they are stored. Currently an environment is a semi-standalone object, it is not linked to a project in the hop-project.json but it is linked to a project in the hop-config.json. In the GUI all environments are shown, not only the environments linked to a project. When using hop-run I *think* you can point to an environment that is not linked to the project in the hop-config.json. My personal preference would be to unlink them completely and have environments that could be used by multiple projects. This gives greater flexibility when you would want to divide your projects on a lower level. con would be that you would always see all available environments defined in your hop-config.json. I would love for some opinions on the matter so it can be set in stone once and for all. And we can update our docs to reflect this decision [2][3]. Cheers, Hans [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HOP-3471 [2] https://hop.apache.org/manual/latest/projects/projects-environments.html#top [3] https://hop.apache.org/manual/latest/projects/index.html#_environments
