Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LC-605 some initial changes to the file connector to support windows mounted drive with stuff like file:///c:/foo/bar/ #236

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kwatters
Copy link
Contributor

@kwatters kwatters commented Jan 9, 2025

file connector doesn't currently work with a windows file path specified that includes the drive letter

@meghanboyd meghanboyd changed the title some initial changes to the file connector to support windows mounted drive with stuff like file:///c:/foo/bar/ LC-605 some initial changes to the file connector to support windows mounted drive with stuff like file:///c:/foo/bar/ Jan 10, 2025
@@ -48,28 +48,28 @@ public interface StorageClient {
* Gets the appropriate client based on the URI scheme and validate with authentication/settings from cloudOptions
*/
static StorageClient create(URI pathToStorage, String docIdPrefix, List<Pattern> excludes, List<Pattern> includes,
Map<String, Object> cloudOptions, Config fileOptions) {
Map<String, Object> cloudOptions, Config fileOptions, Publisher publisher) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this change necessary for resolving the performance issue that this PR is addressing?
There was an explicit decision during the design & review of the FileConnector framework that StorageClient should not bound to any one Publisher. A StorageClient knows about a storage backend and lets you access files from that backend. Once you have a StorageClient you can tell it to publish files with a given publisher but you shouldn't need a publisher in order to create a StorageClient. If there's a concern here, can we address this in a separate ticket/PR?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants