+1, non bindings

Regards,
Yang Guo

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 11:00 AM Anton Borisov <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1, bindings
>
> -- Anton
>
> вт, 11 авг. 2026 г. в 03:44, Jark Wu <[email protected]>:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Best,
> > Jark
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 21:42, Zhe Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for driving this FIP.
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Zhe Wang
> > >
> > >
> > > Leonard Xu <[email protected]> 于2026年8月10日周一 17:56写道:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Junbo for driving this FIP.
> > > >
> > > >  +1 (binding).
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Leonard
> > > >
> > > > > 2026 8月 9 11:15 上午,Junbo Wang <[email protected]> 写道:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jark and all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks a lot for the careful review — all three points make sense
> to me,
> > > > and I’ve updated the FIP [1] to address them: the lookup paths are
> > > > simplified, the supported operations per table type are documented
> together
> > > > with the error behavior, and the Authorization header, including
> Bearer
> > > > tokens, is now covered in the authentication section.
> > > > >
> > > > > As these feel more like clarifications than changes to the design
> under
> > > > vote, I’d suggest keeping the current vote open, with the 72 hours
> counted
> > > > from this update. That said, if any of them turns out to need more
> > > > discussion, I'm happy to bring it back to the DISCUSS thread [2] and
> start
> > > > a fresh vote afterwards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to further feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/FLUSS/pages/444334561/FIP-49+Fluss+Gateway+REST+API
> > > > > [2]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/s5yjysvoj8o6nxdj49m99hg8yn51tgjw
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Junbo Wang
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 9 Aug 2026, at 09:45, Junbo Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Keith,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for the reminder. This should already be a separate [VOTE]
> > > > thread [1] — the mail was sent as a new email rather than a reply to
> the
> > > > [DISCUSS] thread [2], and
> > > > >> its In-Reply-To/References headers are empty on the archive. Your
> mail
> > > > client may have grouped it under the discussion because of the
> similar
> > > > subject.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please let me know whether it still looks off on your side.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/t5jkcvo8b07oxjywbckotbsxl8fhcd76
> > > > >> [2]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/s5yjysvoj8o6nxdj49m99hg8yn51tgjw
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >> Junbo Wang
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On 8 Aug 2026, at 19:06, Jark Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 1. Could we remove the extra "records" segment from the lookup
> paths?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Point Lookup:
> > > > >>> POST
> /v1/clusters/{cluster}/databases/{database}/tables/{table}/lookup
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Prefix Lookup:
> > > > >>> POST
> > > >
> /v1/clusters/{cluster}/databases/{database}/tables/{table}/prefix-lookup
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2. The /records write API does not explicitly define its
> supported
> > > > >>> operation types. My understanding is that Log tables support
> "append"
> > > > >>> only, while primary-key/KV tables support "upsert" and "delete".
> Could
> > > > >>> we document this operation/table compatibility and the error
> behavior
> > > > >>> for unsupported combinations?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 3. Could we explicitly support and document the HTTP
> Authorization
> > > > >>> header, especially Authorization: Bearer <token>? This is a
> common
> > > > >>> authentication mechanism for cloud services: Databricks Zerobus
> and
> > > > >>> Confluent REST Proxy use OAuth/OIDC bearer tokens, while Alibaba
> Cloud
> > > > >>> OSS carries signed credentials in the Authorization header
> [1][2][3].
> > > > >>> The Gateway can validate the credential, resolve it to a
> principal,
> > > > >>> and propagate that principal through the existing identity/act-as
> > > > >>> mechanism.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>

Reply via email to