danielcweeks commented on PR #9884: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9884#issuecomment-1988786681
> @danielcweeks And how can we tackle if an user wants to override an existing Iceberg `ResolverFileIO` ? Imagine if the user wants to change the authentication for `s3` or add `my-s3` scheme extending the `ResolvingFileIO` ? I'm still in favor to give a chance for the users to tweak `ResolvingFileIO`. As it doesn't break anything (it's just addition for users), I think it would be acceptable in Iceberg. There's already a way to override the FileIO, so it is possible for users to customize. However, I don't think we should encourage that. If there are standard schemes with implementations available, we should add them here. We shouldn't encourage using custom schemes (e.g. `my-s3`) as that will get encoded into the path locations in Iceberg metadata and lead to issues with interoperability with other engines. It feels like we're reaching to make a good argument for this as it really hasn't been an issue, which makes this feel like a solution looking for a problem. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
