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

Draft: Layered Model of Singer #30

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dmosorast
Copy link

@dmosorast dmosorast commented Feb 19, 2022

This is the official proposal for the Working Group's adoption of the Layered Model of Singer proposal as represented in Issue #19 per the proposed SIP approval process.

@dmosorast dmosorast changed the title Layered Model of Singer Draft: Layered Model of Singer Feb 19, 2022
- Focus on the std-out portions of using Singer (serialization format, message types, required keys for messages, etc.)

#### Layer 2: Standards
The pieces that systems using Singer can rely on such as catalogs and discovery mode. These pieces required to implement to be considered as up to modern standards for Singer. Not implementing these is not an incompatibility, but all Singer actors should strive to implement the standards. The standards are more focused upon Singer actors themselves themselves (e.g., taps, targets), as opposed to the over-the-wire protocol at the heart of Singer. Some tooling that rely on these standards may not function if an actor does not implement it.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

themselves themselves typo :)

Principles:
- Specific to a particular vertical or market space
- Specific to a single ops approach for deployment or other closer-to-the-metal conecerns
- Not generalizable without either losing value in the source product
Copy link
Member

@visch visch Feb 22, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This sentence I'm a little lost on but I get the general idea. Maybe

Not generalizable without losing value in the Tooling/Orchestration/UX/Infrastructure

Or just

Not generalizable

🤷 , need to work on my writing more anyways so you probably have a better idea (overall this writeup is great and easy to understand)

Copy link
Author

@dmosorast dmosorast Feb 22, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, yup heh. I think I wanted to keep some space for closed source and/or proprietary pieces to be at least categorized here, but The intro probably explains that well enough. I like just "Not generalizable".

dmosorast and others added 3 commits February 22, 2022 10:45
Co-authored-by: Taylor A. Murphy <taylor@meltano.com>
Co-authored-by: Taylor A. Murphy <taylor@meltano.com>
@aaronsteers
Copy link
Contributor

@dmosorast - Nit here: do you mind adding .md file suffix for markdown formatting?

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.

5 participants