> Wes - if we continue developing an a separate repo for now to prove > commitment levels and get this further along does that actually make the IP > clearance procedure harder with more individual contributors involved?
Yes, this will make things harder (since we will have to chase down ICLA's from each contributor). If you are going to work on a native implementation, I strongly recommend doing the work in the Apache community. The code does not need to be API-stable nor production-ready to go into the master branch. Thanks On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> wrote: > I probably shouldn't have used the term binding. I am primarily interested > in a native Rust implementation but it should be possible to have traits > defining the interface and two implementations - one native and one using > FFI to call C. Rust has zero overhead when calling C code typically. I need > to know more about Arrow before I can say for sure. > > Wes - if we continue developing an a separate repo for now to prove > commitment levels and get this further along does that actually make the IP > clearance procedure harder with more individual contributors involved? > > Thanks, > > Andy. > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Not knowing the Rust ecosystem very well, I'm interested in the >> pros/cons of building and maintaining Rust bindings vs. a native Rust >> implementation, or some hybrid of the two. Seems like both bindings >> and native implementation could be part of the same codebase >> potentially. >> >> If we decide to import https://github.com/jihoonson/iron-arrow into >> the Apache Arrow project, it will take 1-2 weeks to conduct the IP >> clearance procedure as we recently did for the Go implementation. This >> is a lot of legwork for the PMC, so I want to make sure before we do >> this that it is worth it, and that there's a plan to continue actively >> developing this code. >> >> Thanks >> Wes >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > My personal view (and I think I've seen others state this already here) >> is >> > that we should bring it into the repo sooner rather than later and work >> on >> > it there. The version is 0.1.0 so I think that sets peoples expectations >> > about how complete it is. >> > >> > I think it is better for people to see it in the arrow repo being >> actively >> > developed. I'm very interested in getting compatibility unit tests set up >> > soon too so we can be sure it really is compatible with the other >> > implementations. >> > >> > Andy. >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:44 AM, paddy horan <paddyho...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> >> >> I’m looking to get involved in contributing to the Rust implementation >> >> also, would love to see it in the arrow repo sooner rather than later. >> >> >> >> Should we identify what needs to be added to iron-Arrow before it’s >> ready >> >> to be donated to the Apache repo? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paddy >> >> >> >> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> >> >> _____________________________ >> >> From: Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> >> >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:08 AM >> >> Subject: Rust bindings >> >> To: <dev@arrow.apache.org> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Congratulations on the release of the Go bindings for Arrow. I think >> Rust >> >> should be next ;-) >> >> >> >> I've been a bit distracted getting a release out in the day job but am >> now >> >> working on iron-arrow and getting it ready to integrate with my >> project. I >> >> hope to be able to put some time in this weekend on this. I don't think >> it >> >> will be very hard to get to a point where I am at least using the Array >> >> type. >> >> >> >> I can commit to working on the Rust bindings moving forward (weekends >> >> mostly) so I think we should go ahead and do this under the arrow repo >> if >> >> everyone is in agreement. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Andy, >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
