arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Arrow Flight protocol/API questions
Date Tue, 02 Apr 2019 21:01:18 GMT
Yes, vote sounds good. List lgtm

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Li <li.davidm96@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message