Hi Folks
I wanted to share my thoughts on the ongoing discussion in PR #741
<https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/741>. about whether to use Realm or
RealmId.
The more I consider it, the more it seems that the name Realm is the more
natural choice. It is more an atomic concept, much like the concept of a
region in AWS.
If we take a closer look at the current usage across Polaris—in
documentation, error messages, and configurations—realm and realmId are
already used interchangeably. In fact, in most cases, we simply use realm
rather than realmId.
Here are a few examples in the Polaris repo:
Error Messages:
- realm: <realm> root principal credentials:
<client-id>:<client-secret>
Configurations:
- Polaris.realm-context.realms
- jdbc:h2:file:./build/test_data/polaris/{realm}/db
Documentation:
<https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/>
<https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/>
- <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/>Metastores
<https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/>
- Configuring Polaris for Production
<https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/configuring-polaris-for-production/>
- Admin Tool <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/admin-tool/>
Proposal
Based on this consistency and the conceptual clarity it brings, I proposed
two options:
Option 1, using the name realm instead of realmId throughout Polaris and
still keeping the interface (public interface Realm) for dependency
injection purposes. The interface can be extensible in case we want to add
any subconcept to the realm, which may never happen to be honest.
Option 2, purely using a string for realm instead of an interface, this is
simpler ultimately, but not extensible and needs more effort to refactor
the current code.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Yufei
