hi David, This seems like a reasonable evolution from where we are now. I will defer to others to comment on the low-level details
This is sort of scope and kind of a can of worms, but one area where we should invest some thought is alternative FlightData transports, while allowing the "command layer" to continue to be gRPC. One such possible alternative scheme includes: * gRPC-over-TCP commands (actions, etc.) * Movement of IPC messages using RDMA (I have never actually used RDMA but it has been brought up to me as a topic of interest by multiple parties now) If a server supports an alternative protocols (e.g. gRPC-based for compatibility, plus RDMA for clients that implement it) then perhaps this information can be encoded in URIs. I'm not sure if there's prior art to look at on this design-wise - Wes On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:24 PM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We'd like to propose a URI scheme for Flight, in anticipation of > supporting multiple transports, and different configurations of the > gRPC transport. This will change Flight.proto[1] in format/ in a > backwards-incompatible way. This aims to fix ARROW-4651[2]. > > The proposal can be found here (it should be commentable by all): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Eps9eHvBc_qM8nRsTVwVCuWwHoEtQ-a-8Lv5dswuQoM/edit > > Any and all feedback is appreciated! > > A draft PR is up for Java/C++/Python, though it is far from complete: > https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4047 > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/format/Flight.proto > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-4651 > > Best, > David
