I second this request.
Regards Antoine. On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 15:26:26 -0700 Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > >
