Sounds good to have all these compatible, modular goals and changes, for Apache Arrow, in the early stage.
On the other hand, not being afraid of changes keep evolving towards the core goals and the well-defined initiatives, which is also important. Parquet is relevant and also a good example. IMO, it's simply poorly organized. Yes it's all about history, but as a still young project, it looks like to me it just stops evolving. Will Arrow be another Parquet? Regards, Kai -----Original Message----- From: Wes McKinney [mailto:w...@cloudera.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 6:03 AM To: dev@arrow.apache.org Subject: Re: Understanding "shared" memory implications On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote: > > For Arrow, let's make sure that we do our best to accomplish both (1) > and (2). They seem like entirely compatible goals. > > For my part on the C++ side, I plan to proceed with a hub-and-spoke model. A minimal small core library with "leaf" shared libraries (for example: Parquet read/write adapter) that you can opt-in to building. This will add some extra linker configuration complexity for downstream users but to the benefit of a less monolithic library stack (which I don't think anyone wants).
