Hi Yufei Thanks for starting this discussion.
My preference is for option 1, both for the naming but also because the interface can host additional "functions" for the realm (in the future). Regards JB On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 2:51 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
