Rats, made a mistake in that diff. The Gist has been updated [1] and now contains the ResourceUtils class which was missing before. [1] https://gist.github.com/kaspersorensen/6210970
2013/8/12 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>: > 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 >>>>
