arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Arrow Flight protocol/API questions
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2019 19:32:48 GMT
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