Hey Wes, Thanks for the comments. I've updated the doc a bit to reflect some options for supporting "hybrid" transports.
Best, David On 3/29/19, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
