Oh ok, thanks Matt, I understand. In that case I am +1 on the proposal but I would like to see notes added to the documentation to make this clearer to readers. I created an issue for this: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/44535
Thanks, Ian On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 2:54 PM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Given the promises of the C Data Interface, it's not viable to retire the > non-device versions of the interfaces. But overall, it's better to prefer > only adding new things in terms of the DeviceArray structs to avoid > consumers having to create duplicate interfaces for both ArrowArray and > ArrowDeviceArray, particularly because the Device version is a superset of > the functionality of the original ArrowArray. > > Overall we want to push consumers to prefer the ArrowDeviceArray versions > of interfaces since it can handle both cases (CPU and non-cpu data) and > avoids the complexities of consumers having to support both with duplicate > interfaces going forward. At least that's my opinion on this one. Let me > know if anyone disagrees > > --Matt > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 12:21 PM Ian Cook <ianmc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks Matt for doing this! > > > > I am +0.5 on the current proposal, because (if I understand correctly) it > > adds ArrowAsyncDeviceStreamHandler but does not > > add ArrowAsyncStreamHandler. I recognize that the C Device Stream > Interface > > with a DeviceType of CPU is functionally equivalent to the C Stream > > Interface, but shouldn't we specify, document, implement the non-device > > version of the async interface for completeness and consistency? Please > > correct me if I am misunderstanding anything here. > > > > Ian > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:38 AM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > @pitrou I've updated the format PR to add the Experimental tag to the > > > header and the documentation. Thanks! > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024, 7:35 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1, with the same comments as Felipe and Dewey. > > > > > > > > Just at one condition from me: the API should be marked experimental. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Antoine. > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 24/10/2024 à 23:17, Felipe Oliveira Carvalho a écrit : > > > > > +1 from me. > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed the PR some time ago and it's not a trivial protocol, > but > > > the > > > > > complexity seems warranted and necessary. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 6:02 PM Dewey Dunnington > > > > > <de...@voltrondata.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Matt for putting this together! > > > > >> > > > > >> I was initially concerned about the complexity of the proposal; > > > > >> however, it is a difficult interaction to standardize and this > > > > >> proposal is not so complex that it is unimplementable. I am > excited > > to > > > > >> use this to improve our asynchronous database access story in the > R > > > > >> ADBC bindings. > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 from me! > > > > >> > > > > >> -dewey > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 1:28 PM Matt Topol < > zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hey All, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I would like to propose a vote for us to officially add and adopt > > > Async > > > > >>> structures for the Arrow C Data Interface. The proposal can be > > found, > > > > >> along > > > > >>> with discussion in comment threads, at [1]. The proposal contains > > the > > > > >>> definitions and additions to the documentation for the website. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As is required, there are two implementations filed as PRs, a C++ > > > > >>> implementation [2] and a Go implementation [3]. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> [ ] +1 Accept the proposal > > > > >>> [ ] +0 > > > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks everyone! > > > > >>> --Matt > > > > >>> > > > > >>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/43632 > > > > >>> [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/44495 > > > > >>> [3]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-go/pull/169 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
