On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 19:03 -0400, John Doyle wrote:
I've looked at the work checked in on the 7th, and given that
first check-in I think it's very good. I have some technical comments
that I will put in the JIRAs, but what's there is good.
Let's hear them on this list before we make JIRA, as they may be already
being worked on?
My main point is about process. We discussed the connector metadata
feature before we were open source, and I thought the consensus was
going the other way, it's hard to say from my remote perspective. The
next time I see it it's on the short list for 6.2.
We have had discussions
about the feature in public, that is when we had
our differences. May be not discussions as to how to implement it, but
as I said before there was not much to re-invent. This feature took
precedence from the R&D call we had, where overwhelmingly most of the
questions were why we did not have similar feature. Also, 6.2 list is
based on the product discussions with TDM and PM.
But I read your responses below and I still don't know where
thing is going. Is the plan to expose the "metadata objects" more
broadly as THE way to specify metadata?
We need to hash out what a feature will be in the forums before we
commit to it, so that everybody gets to see and pitch in if they
choose, and some consensus can be built. Everybody can see the
implications so that people can react/plan.
I think you confusing with our
another broader goal in defining the
metadata language. That is being discussed on thread [VDB metadata
consumed by Teiid]. That is discussion how we define a metadata language
in DDL or XMI or Groovy etc. Please do contribute on that thread with
any suggestions. The intent is that language is the persistent form, and
the metadata objects being defined now are the runtime graph that
represent the language.
It's not clear to me that the Designer team is signed up for any
associated with this.
We have not solicited them for any tooling around this
feature. That is
the main point of this feature too. Teiid to work (minimally only
federation not any abstraction) with out any tooling around it.
I don't know if I'm going to try and adapt the SF connector
new API because I don't know what's going to be there.
Again, let us know
what you need to make this happen. Documentation is
also coming up before release of 6.2 on Connector development.
It looks like Extensions are not in the offing for this release? Is
that right, or wrong?
I think they are part of next set of commits, Steve?
I think we're on the same page here technologically, I just
anyway to tell because the vision has not been elaborated.
The metadata vision is
make it available to the Teiid in tool
independent way and make it easy for the developer to define and use. 1)
Connector Metadata 2) Metadata Language 3) ??
I know, we need to get better at this, it's not late. So let's hear
technical discussions around the feature rather than complaining.