[MINOR][SQL] Fix spaces in JDBC connection providers

[gaborgsomogyi]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

JDBC connection providers implementation formatted in a wrong way. In this PR I've fixed the formatting.

Why are the changes needed?

Wrong spacing in JDBC connection providers.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

Existing unit tests.

[gaborgsomogyi]

cc @dongjoon-hyun @maropu
I thought it would be overkill to create a jira for this but if you think just let me know.

[HyukjinKwon]

It's actually not encouraged to make a PR for some trivial nits that are virtually same before/after in general given that we can just fix such nits later when we touch the codes for a fix together, and it uses the limited resources in Jenkins which abort the jobs globally when the number of jobs is too high for some reasons.

At least this PR fixes all style nits under connection packages non-invasively so I guess it's fine but let's avoid next time.

[gaborgsomogyi]

Previously I've received suggestions not to pollute original PR intention w/ side effects like this. I'm basically fine w/ either way (but my vote goes definitely to your suggestion not to waste jenkins resources).

[srowen]

I don't know if we even have a strong convention for this, but I slightly prefer the double-indent for 'extends', to separate it from the body. Doesn't matter. If it's not consistent we might just leave it as is across the code.

[gaborgsomogyi]

@dongjoon-hyun showed this: https://github.com/databricks/scala-style-guide/blame/master/README.md#L242

[dongjoon-hyun]

This has been a known convention and I also have been encouraging to follow the rule in new PRs. However, I don't think this post-mortem PR is worth because the existing code was made by multiple commits. I usually recommend to use the guideline when the author touches that part, @gaborgsomogyi .

[gaborgsomogyi]

OK @dongjoon-hyun , agreed. Should we proceed w/ this PR or should we melt them together?

[SparkQA]

Test build #124642 has started for PR 28945 at commit e5f3562.

[dongjoon-hyun]

Usually, @HyukjinKwon 's comment is the general consensus.

It's actually not encouraged to make a PR for some trivial nits

For this specific one, I'll merge this PR. Let's move on~ I believe we are all on the same page for the general rules.

[SparkQA]

Test build #124653 has finished for PR 28945 at commit e5f3562.

• This patch passes all tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.