Re: [teiid-dev] [teiid-designer-dev] vdb connector binding names

Using the model name as the connector name is fine for default scenario, unless there are two models that are associated with same connector. On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 10:11 -0500, Steven Hawkins wrote:

> There seems to be some confusion over what's needed for connector binding names. To simplify things, there are two basic requirements - we need a known/stable/not environmentally dependent name for each connector binding used in a vdb and there also needs to be a way to associate that name with an actual JNDI resource. In the case of non-multisource models, the model name itself satisfies the first part. Only in the multisource scenario do we have an issue with needing an additional vdb specific name for the connector binding. As a first cut it seems fine to say that both the JNDI mapping and the vdb specific naming of multi-source connector bindings is a deployment time concern. Then the only design-time concerns become the model name and optionally marking a model multi-source enabled.

From a tooling perspective, I don't think it matters which name is used to represent the binding between either connectors and connector types or between models and connectors. The most important concern would be what Steve addressed - to keep the deployment issues away from design-time users, including within the configuration file contained within the VDB. At least that's my 2 cents.