Hi Muhammet,
Have you had a chance to review the recently merged pull request [1]?
We've introduced a new feature allowing users to include ad hoc configurations
in the 'JdbcConnectionOptions' class.
```
new JdbcConnectionOptions.JdbcConnectionOptionsBuilder()
.withUrl(FakeDBUtils.TEST_DB_URL)
.withProperty("keyA", "valueA")
.build();
```
This provides flexibility by enabling users to specify additional configuration
parameters dynamically.
[1] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/115/files
Best
On 2024/05/06 07:34:06 Muhammet Orazov wrote:
> Morning João,
>
> Recently we had a case where the JDBC drivers authentication was
> different than username&password authentication. For it to work, certain
> hacks required, there interface would have been helpful.
>
> But I agree maybe the interface module separation is not required at the
> moment.
>
> Thanks for your efforts!
>
> Best,
> Muhammet
>
>
> On 2024-05-03 12:25, João Boto wrote:
> > 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
> >>
>
