Sorry about that! It should be enabled now, let me know if it doesn't work.
Best, David On 3/22/19, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > I second this request. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 15:26:26 -0700 > Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@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.david...@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 >> > >> > > > >
