Yes, vote sounds good. List lgtm On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:13 PM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The proposed changes (also in the document [1]): > > Proposal 1: In FlightData, add a bytes field for application-defined > metadata. > In DoPut, change the return type to be streaming, and add a bytes > field to PutResult for application-defined metadata. > > Proposal 2: In client/server APIs, add a call options parameter to > control timeouts and provide access to the identity of the > authenticated peer (if any). > > Proposal 3: Add an interface to define authentication protocols on the > client and server, using the existing Handshake endpoint and adding a > protocol-defined, per-call token. > > Proposal 4: Construct the client/server using builders to allow > configuration of transport-specific options and open the door for > alternative transports. > > [1]: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aIVZ8SD5dMZXHTCeEY9PoNAwyuUgG-UEjmd3zfs1PYM/edit > > Best, > David > > On 4/2/19, Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we can have a vote. Can you write a summary bulleted list of > > the changes/additions in brief? > > > > Jacques, what do you think? > > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:31 PM David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Just wanted to circle back to this - I've gotten a lot of feedback on > >> the linked document, and I appreciate all the suggestions. Discussion > >> seems to have quieted down; is this ready for a vote (perhaps as > >> individual format changes)? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> David > >> > >> On 3/22/19, David Li <li.david...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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 > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > >
