+1 (non-binding) Best, Xuwei Fu
David Li <lidav...@apache.org> 于2024年10月29日周二 07:51写道： > +1 (binding) for me > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2024, at 10:39, Ian Cook wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
