FANNG1 commented on PR #6485:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/pull/6485#issuecomment-2677300672
> > On a quick review, my feeling is that using a wrapper is not so
intuitive, do we have any better solution to handle such scenario?
>
> One thing I am thinking is if we can create a MutableRequestBuilder that
wraps the exiting Request, the existing Iceberg request builder does not
support get method (maybe something good to contribute) otherwise below is my
proposal:
>
> ```
> class MutableCreateTableRequestBuilder {
> // clone existing unmodifiable CreateTableRequest into a
modifiable builder
> MutableCreateTableRequestBuilder(CreateTableRequest request) {
> this.name = request.name()
> this.properties = request.properties()
> ...
> }
>
> void setProperties(Map properties) {}
> Map getProperties() {}
>
> void setLocation(String newLocation) {}
> String getLocation() {}
>
> ...
>
> CreateTableRequest build() {
> CreateTableRequest.Builder builder = ...
> builder.set...
> builcer.set...
> return builder.build()
> }
> }
> ```
>
> As a result `MutableCreateTableRequestBuilder` will be the element that is
passed around and IRC will be responsible to call build() function
>
> @FANNG1 thought?
I'm not sure whether `MutableCreateTableRequestBuilder` is suitable to place
in Gravitino Iceberg REST server code, as it's tied to Iceberg request
implemetation.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@gravitino.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
