Here's a proposed patch (implemented for CSV and fixedwidth files which are the modules that implemented the old schema naming pattern): https://gist.github.com/kaspersorensen/6210970
2013/8/10 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METAMODEL-4 > > 2013/8/10 Henry Saputra <[email protected]>: >> What is the JIRA for this one? >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Manuel van den Berg < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> (shouldn't I just vote on the Jira for this?) >>> >>> manuel >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Kasper Sørensen [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:03 >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] use folder name as schema name for file based >>> > DataContexts >>> > >>> > Allow me to bump this issue (it's my impression that more people have >>> joined >>> > in a bit late, after this topic was posted). >>> > >>> > I think this is one of the more important issues that I would want to fix >>> > before we make our first release at Apache. >>> > >>> > 2013/7/24 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>: >>> > > Right now we have this slightly odd naming convention for schema and >>> > > table names when building metadata for e.g. a CSV file or a fixed >>> > > width value file. >>> > > >>> > > Schema name: The filename, including file extension. >>> > > Table name: The filename without extension. >>> > > Resulting in e.g. a column path like this: people.csv.people.name >>> > > >>> > > I suggest we change it to this convention: >>> > > >>> > > Schema name: Folder name >>> > > Table name: The filename, including file extension. >>> > > Resulting in e.g. a column path like this: documents.people.csv.name >>> > > >>> > > Why do I think this would be an improvement? >>> > > >>> > > 1) Because this would first of all make a kind of sense to the user to >>> > > see the file system's hierarchy reflected in the schema model. >>> > > 2) Because it allows us to make these DataContext's operate not on a >>> > > single file, but on a directory of files. I have seen this quite a >>> > > number of times by now that users of MetaModel, or users of e.g. >>> > > DataCleaner, which uses MetaModel quite heavily, wants to do this sort >>> of >>> > stuff. >>> > > 3) The removing of the file extension stuff is kind of broken and a >>> > > strange convention in the first place. >>> > > >>> > > While this doesn't really break backwards compatibility in terms of >>> > > Java code, it would break configuration files and other stuff of >>> > > applications that use MetaModel. But I do believe that can be >>> > > communicated and handled through carefully explaining the new >>> > > convention on the migration page (that I recently started writing [1]). >>> > > >>> > > What do you think? >>> > > >>> > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/MigratingFromEobjectsMetaModel >>>
