It isn't implemented in C++ yet but I will try to get a patch up for
that soon (today maybe). I think we should create a branch where we
can stack the patches that implement this for each language.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:04 AM Paul Taylor <ptaylor.apa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll do the JS updates. Is it safe to validate against the Arrow C++
> integration tests?
>
>
> On 8/22/19 7:28 PM, Micah Kornfield wrote:
> > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-6313 as a tracking
> > issue with sub-issues on the development work.  So far no-one has claimed
> > Java and Javascript tasks.
> >
> > Would it make sense to have a separate dev branch for this work?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Micah
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:24 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The vote carries with 4 binding +1 votes and 1 non-binding +1
> >>
> >> I'll merge the specification patch later today and we can begin
> >> working on implementations so we can get this done for 0.15.0
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:30 PM Bryan Cutler <cutl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 7:43 AM Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Sorry, had forgotten to send my vote on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 from me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Antoine.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 17:42:33 -0500
> >>>> Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As we've been discussing [1], there is a need to introduce 4 bytes of
> >>>>> padding into the preamble of the "encapsulated IPC message" format to
> >>>>> ensure that the Flatbuffers metadata payload begins on an 8-byte
> >>>>> aligned memory offset. The alternative to this would be for Arrow
> >>>>> implementations where alignment is important (e.g. C or C++) to copy
> >>>>> the metadata (which is not always small) into memory when it is
> >>>>> unaligned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Micah has proposed to address this by adding a
> >>>>> 4-byte "continuation" value at the beginning of the payload
> >>>>> having the value 0xFFFFFFFF. The reason to do it this way is that
> >>>>> old clients will see an invalid length (what is currently the
> >>>>> first 4 bytes of the message -- a 32-bit little endian signed
> >>>>> integer indicating the metadata length) rather than potentially
> >>>>> crashing on a valid length. We also propose to expand the "end of
> >>>>> stream" marker used in the stream and file format from 4 to 8
> >>>>> bytes. This has the additional effect of aligning the file footer
> >>>>> defined in File.fbs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This would be a backwards incompatible protocol change, so older
> >> Arrow
> >>>>> libraries would not be able to read these new messages. Maintaining
> >>>>> forward compatibility (reading data produced by older libraries)
> >> would
> >>>>> be possible as we can reason that a value other than the continuation
> >>>>> value was produced by an older library (and then validate the
> >>>>> Flatbuffer message of course). Arrow implementations could offer a
> >>>>> backward compatibility mode for the sake of old readers if they
> >> desire
> >>>>> (this may also assist with testing).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additionally with this vote, we want to formally approve the change
> >> to
> >>>>> the Arrow "file" format to always write the (new 8-byte)
> >> end-of-stream
> >>>>> marker, which enables code that processes Arrow streams to safely
> >> read
> >>>>> the file's internal messages as though they were a normal stream.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The PR making these changes to the IPC documentation is here
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4951
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please vote to accept these changes. This vote will be open for at
> >>>>> least 72 hours
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1 Adopt these Arrow protocol changes
> >>>>> [ ] +0
> >>>>> [ ] -1 I disagree because...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is my vote: +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Wes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]:
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8440be572c49b7b2ffb76b63e6d935ada9efd9c1c2021369b6d27786@%3Cdev.arrow.apache.org%3E
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>

Reply via email to