I think if all reference implementations are doing this the same way we
should update the docs and I don't think a vote is necessary.

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 10:27 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hey Nate,
>
> Good catch. I would say it was intentional to use an IPC message (while
> the length is redundant, it also contains the metadata version and custom
> metadata), and the comment is a little vague. I'm not sure if we need a
> vote to update this since it is changing files in the format dir.
>
> I did check the Java implementation quickly and even in the initial
> version, the schema is IPC-encapsulated[1].
>
> -David
>
> [1]:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/commit/b3cd616f6ce39e9a820b658ba2f2e2fd3b153555#diff-80e8aef2d6b475949641689fe8d686db2cc1d6703cafe8f6f0dc120b04f964b7R106
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021, at 20:28, Nate Bauernfeind wrote:
> > In flight.proto [1] it states that the encoded bytes are as described in
> > the flatbuffer schema.
> >
> > ```
> > /*
> > * Wrap the result of a getSchema call
> > */
> > message SchemaResult {
> >   // schema of the dataset as described in Schema.fbs::Schema.
> >   bytes schema = 1;
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > However, both this schema and the schema on the flight info are actually
> > encoded like an IPC file stream message.
> >
> > They start with a 4-byte IPC_CONTINUATION_TOKEN, followed by a 4-byte
> > message size, followed by a Message wrapping a Schema. See [2] and [3]
> for
> > evidence in the Java client.
> >
> > Is this an accidental bug that has propagated to all client
> implementations?
> > Or was it intentional and I should submit a PR to update the comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nate
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/format/Flight.proto#L195
> > [2]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/java/flight/flight-core/src/main/java/org/apache/arrow/flight/FlightInfo.java#L141
> > [3]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/java/vector/src/main/java/org/apache/arrow/vector/ipc/message/MessageSerializer.java#L161
> > --
> >
>

Reply via email to