I am in favor of [2] as sometime an operator can be used to do other operation such as branching.
Thanks Sam > On May 29, 2020, at 9:39 AM, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am in favour of [1] : Short and sweet (just personal preference) > >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hello everyone >> >> We had a discussion in Slack which turned out that we have yet another >> opportunity to name the operators/hooks a bit more consistently. Seems that >> we did not have any rule on how to name Transfer operators and we have >> different conventions already. >> >> Explanation those are the two examples of conventions we have for transfer >> operators: >> >> [1] *S3ToHiveOperator* >> [2] *S3ToHiveTransferOperator* >> [3] *S3ToHiveTransfer* >> [4] We do not care about consistency >> >> Some initial comments that I gathered from the discussions:: >> >> - Why [1] and not [2,3]: "To" and "Transfer" seem a bit redundant >> - Why [2] and not [1,3]: Longest, but most descriptive. It's easy to see >> that it's an Operator, but you get the Transfer purpose as well. sometimes >> when we use Acronyms (S3ToGCS :) ) it's hard to distinguish "To" from the >> acronyms. >> - Why [1, 2] and not [3]: All Operators (but not Sensor) end with >> "Operator" >> - Why [3]: and not [1,2]: To introduce distinction: "Sensor", "Operator", >> so maybe "Transfer" should be another "entity" and in the future, we might >> implement a more generic Transfer approach >> >> I will let the discussion run till the end of today and cast a formal vote >> afterwards >> >> I do not yet cancel Backport RC3, because I am not sure if this is >> something we might want to do - maybe after discussion we decide we leave >> the status quo. >> >> Discussion in slack here: >> >> https://apache-airflow.slack.com/archives/CCPRP7943/p1590746507407100?thread_ts=1590742848.402600&cid=CCPRP7943 >> >> >> J. >> >> >> -- >> >> Jarek Potiuk >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >>
