Hey Walaa, I recognize the issue you're calling out but disagree there is an implicit assumption in the spec. The spec clearly says how identifiers including catalogs and namespaces are represented/stored and how references need to be resolved. The idea that a catalog may not match is an environmental/infrastructure/configuration issue related to where they are being referenced from.
If we think this is sufficiently confusing to people, I would be open to discussing an "unsupported configurations" callout, but I don't think this blocks work and am somewhat skeptical that it's necessary. -Dan On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:47 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa <wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > I think there are a few questions that we should solve to decide the path > forward: > > ** Does the current spec contain implicit assumptions?* > I think the answer is yes. I think this is also what Ryan indicated here > [1]. > > ** Do these implicit assumptions make it difficult to adopt the spec or > evolve it in the correct way?* > I think the answer is yes as well. MV design discussions became quite > complicated because most contributors had a different understanding of the > spec compared to what it encodes as implicit assumptions (see this thread > for an example [2] -- there are a few more). This unaligned understanding > could possibly lead to inaccurate designs and potentially result in > unneeded further constraints or unneeded engineering complexity. > > ** What are the implicit assumptions (in an ambiguous way)?* > I do not think the answer is clear to everyone, even at this point. There > have been a few variations of those assumptions in this thread alone. I > think we should converge on a clear set of assumptions for everyone's > consumption. > > ** Should we add the assumptions explicitly to the spec?* > I think we definitely should. Adoption or extension of the spec will be > quite difficult if the assumptions are not clearly stated and are > interpreted differently by different contributors. > > Would be great to hear the community's feedback on whether they agree with > the answers to the above questions. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/s1hjnc163ny76smv2l0t2sxxn93s4595 > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0wzowd15328rnwvotzcoo4jrdyrzlx91 > > Thanks, > Walaa. >
