arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Li <li.david...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Arrow Flight protocol/API questions
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2019 20:06:01 GMT
The proposed changes (also in the document [1]):

Proposal 1: In FlightData, add a bytes field for application-defined metadata.
In DoPut, change the return type to be streaming, and add a bytes
field to PutResult for application-defined metadata.

Proposal 2: In client/server APIs, add a call options parameter to
control timeouts and provide access to the identity of the
authenticated peer (if any).

Proposal 3: Add an interface to define authentication protocols on the
client and server, using the existing Handshake endpoint and adding a
protocol-defined, per-call token.

Proposal 4: Construct the client/server using builders to allow
configuration of transport-specific options and open the door for
alternative transports.

[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aIVZ8SD5dMZXHTCeEY9PoNAwyuUgG-UEjmd3zfs1PYM/edit

Best,
David

On 4/2/19, Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we can have a vote. Can you write a summary bulleted list of
> the changes/additions in brief?
>
> Jacques, what do you think?
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:31 PM David Li <li.davidm96@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just wanted to circle back to this - I've gotten a lot of feedback on
>> the linked document, and I appreciate all the suggestions. Discussion
>> seems to have quieted down; is this ready for a vote (perhaps as
>> individual format changes)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> On 3/22/19, David Li <li.davidm96@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sorry about that! It should be enabled now, let me know if it doesn't
>> > work.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > David
>> >
>> > On 3/22/19, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I second this request.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> Antoine.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 15:26:26 -0700
>> >> Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>> Hey David, thanks for sharing this. Can you add comment capability to
>> >>> the
>> >>> doc for reviewers?
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>> Jacques
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 1:29 PM David Li <li.davidm96@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > To bring this back up again, we've started experimenting with
>> >>> > Flight
>> >>> > for real now, and have some proposals. Including the
>> >>> > justifications,
>> >>> > they're a little long, so I've put them on a linked Google doc:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aIVZ8SD5dMZXHTCeEY9PoNAwyuUgG-UEjmd3zfs1PYM/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In short, these proposals try to add the minimal amount in the
>> >>> > APIs/protocol to be "production-ready" based on what we've seen
so
>> >>> > far. Originally, I brought up the idea of adding "escape hatches"
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > get at the underlying RPC framework objects, but after taking a
>> >>> > stab
>> >>> > at this, it isn't feasible in Python, making it kind of pointless
as
>> >>> > a
>> >>> > solution. I'd like to avoid making Flight into a full-on RPC
>> >>> > framework
>> >>> > in and of itself, with an eye for portability in the future. We'd
>> >>> > be
>> >>> > willing to work on implementations of all these to get the ball
>> >>> > rolling.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Many of these could be solved in the meantime with reasonable
>> >>> > defaults
>> >>> > - but I think inevitably users will need to tweak lower-level
>> >>> > details
>> >>> > as things hit production, and generally reasonable defaults won't
>> >>> > apply in every case.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Finally, thanks to all who have been reviewing/working on Flight
so
>> >>> > far, I'm quite excited to start using it for real.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Best,
>> >>> > David
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>

Mime
View raw message