Random idea, how about standard? Like how we can Python’s stock libraries standard libraries.
> On 16 Aug 2024, at 22:19, Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > > What about primary provider? > > בתאריך יום ו׳, 16 באוג׳ 2024, 16:49, מאת Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>: > >> I also think "core" is not the best one as we are using "airflow core" as a >> different meaning already (that's another example of Ash's "one thing >> to mean in Airflow") . I still think "common.operators" would be a good >> name, but I am not insisting on "common", still I think "providers.time" >> is too granular (that would be a good name - but for reasons explained >> above, I think it's better to have "one" such provider with all the basic >> operators). >> >> Speaking of which, how would "*apache-airflow-providers-basic-operators*" >> sound ? I think "Base" is also used in airflow for different things - >> extendability rather than reusability. >> >> And yes - the extra provider will be pre-installed - so no need to install >> anything extra from the user's point of view.. Main benefit of having it in >> a separate provider will be that it will be separately upgradeable - no >> need to upgrade airflow to get new features of PythonOperator for example. >> >> >> J >> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:50 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Oh yes 100%. Such a core/base/whatever provider would be a dependency of >>> apache-airflow, much like the http provider is today, so no extra deps >>> would need to be specified by the users. >>> >>> On 16 August 2024 11:28:18 BST, Bas Harenslak <b...@astronomer.io.INVALID >>> >>> wrote: >>>> “core” sounds conflicting to me because a providers package is not part >>> of the core. I understand the desire to strip out more operators/sensor >>> from the core Airflow package for maintainability purposes, but would >>> prefer to be able to run a bare minimum example DAG without having to >>> install additional provider packages. >>>> >>>> My suggestion is therefore to keep several key operators/sensors, e.g. >>> Bash/Python/EmptyOperator, and I'd be fine with putting everything else >> in >>> a “common" provider. >>>> >>>> Bas >>>> >>>>> On 16 Aug 2024, at 11:52, Pierre Jeambrun <pierrejb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I also like core >>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 16 août 2024 à 11:48, rom sharon <rom.sharo...@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> +1 for “core” >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
