Hi Muhammet, While I generally agree, given our current usage, I'm struggling to discern any clear advantage. We already have abstract implementations that cover all necessary interfaces and offer essential functionality, complemented by a robust set of reusable tests to streamline implementation.
With this established infrastructure in place, coupled with the added import overhead of introducing another module, I find it difficult to identify any distinct benefits at this point. Best On 2024/04/26 02:18:52 Muhammet Orazov wrote: > Hey João, > > Thanks for FLIP proposal! > > Since proposal is to introduce modules, would it make sense > to have another module for APIs (flink-jdbc-connector-api)? > > For this I would suggest to move all public interfaces (e.g, > JdbcRowConverter, JdbcConnectionProvider). And even convert > some classes into interface with their default implementations, > for example, JdbcSink, JdbcConnectionOptions. > > This way users would have clear interfaces to build their own > JDBC based Flink connectors. > > Here I am not suggesting to introduce new interfaces, only > suggest also to separate the API from the core implementation. > > What do you think? > > Best, > Muhammet > > > On 2024-04-25 08:54, Joao Boto wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on FLIP-449: Reorganization of > > flink-connector-jdbc [1]. > > As Flink continues to evolve, we've noticed an increasing level of > > complexity within the JDBC connector. > > The proposed solution is to address this complexity by separating the > > core > > functionality from individual database components, thereby streamlining > > the > > structure into distinct modules. > > > > Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions, thanks. > > Best regards, > > Joao Boto > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-449%3A+Reorganization+of+flink-connector-jdbc >
