[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/TEIIDSB-170?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ] Steven Hawkins commented on TEIIDSB-170: ---------------------------------------- Whether we need the target name or not is an implementation decision - which isn't really based upon data grid. Recall that only in the internal materialization case did we not require the setting of a materialization target name. For all others we did. if for whatever reason it's too much work (and/or we want to differentiate between in-process internal) to automate around the cache name, regardless of the materialization source type, then it's not too much of a stretch to still require it. In short yes. There should certainly be examples of spinning up a java process from go. If not it's really easy to imagine a service, probably serverless, that could be provided whatever input ddl and could provide an output of what you need to know. I don't fully understand what you are advocating here. I'm not suggesting that stuff based upon the latest Teiids isn't somehow a "new/different", but rather that it drags along a lot of baggage because of the architecture - which you are proposing to base the operator on. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008)