Agree with Wes, the protobuf based interface should be the language neutral
way to build expressions with Gandiva.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:30 PM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This makes sense to me know that I understand a little more about Gandiva.
> This also fits well with my proposal to donate DataFusion in the other
> thread. DataFusion can manage the overall logical query plan in Rust and
> potentially delegate some subset of expression evaluation to Gandiva via
> protobuf.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy.
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 7:51 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gandiva supports a Protobuf-based interface -- this is how Java
> > interacts with it via JNI. Rust could do the same -- that would
> > probably be easier than wrapping the C++ class structure. It would
> > also help drive new feature requirements in the serialized
> > projection/filter expression trees
> >
> > - Wes
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:22 AM Krisztián Szűcs
> > <szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure, that a binding is a good idea. Both Arrow and Parquet
> > > already have their own rust implementation, and a interfacing with
> > > cpp isn't as easy and straightforward than it is with C. Otherwise
> > > We could simply just maintain bindings for all of the cpp libraries,
> > > rather than of having a hybrid solution.
> > >
> > > While We could spare the reimplementation of gandiva, it'd make
> > > packaging more complicated and rust development way less
> > > welcoming to new contributors.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:39 PM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now that the Rust implementation of Arrow is maturing, I'm interested
> > in
> > > > having bindings for Gandiva for query execution, rather than
> > duplicating
> > > > this in Rust.
> > > >
> > > > I will likely start looking at this soon but wanted to see if anyone
> > else
> > > > here is particularly interested in this area of functionality?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Andy.
> > > >
> >
>

Reply via email to