We have discussed this yesterday in the catalog sync from *44:00 to 1:03:36* https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SMOlxus5C92FvW9T4LOXy8Ue_9cmPLyX/view?usp=sharing&t=2643
IIRC, the conclusion was that each catalog may handle namespaces differently, with some supporting multi-level namespaces and others not. Iceberg does not intend to standardize this behavior, so it is up to each catalog to update their documentation regarding their specific behavior. - Ajantha On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 3:12 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi > > As namespace is not part of the spec, each REST server implementation > can use a different logic from another one. > The TCK will be able to verify the most abstract operations on > namespace (common denominator on namespace behavior). > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 11:11 AM Yong Zhang <zhangyong1025...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > It seems TCK will make sure the logic of the REST is consistent. So in > > the future iceberg will make all things align. > > > > We can merge the current PR to avoid a burden on the user. WDYT? > > > > Thanks! > > Yong > > > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 01:04, Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for initiating this discussion. > >> > >> I suggested moving it to the mailing list because the javadoc of > SupportsNamespaces and the REST API spec don't clearly define how to handle > missing parent namespaces. > >> > >> I'm generally +1 of the idea to automatically create missing namespaces > now, as it reduces the burden on the user. However, I believe this approach > should be standardized and adopted by all catalogs that support multi-level > namespaces to avoid confusion. > >> That is we need to update the java doc and REST API spec descriptions > for this behavior once we have consensus. > >> > >> - Ajantha > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 7:44 PM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Yong: > >>> > >>> Thanks for reporting this. > >>> > >>>> Do you think iceberg needs to standardize the REST spec to make sure > the > >>>> logic is the same for using the SupportsNamespace interface? > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes, I think it's valuable. I remember @Jean-Baptiste Onofré had a > proposal for TCK of rest catalog, and this case shows that TCK has a lot of > merit. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 5:47 PM Yong Zhang <zhangyong1025...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> When I was using the SupportsNamespaces to do the namespace > >>>> create and exists check with other catalog services that implement > >>>> the Iceberg REST API, I found it has different results with different > >>>> catalog services. Iceberg has provided a standard API to do the > >>>> namespace operations, but seems iceberg does not have a standard > >>>> spec on the REST API implementation. That makes the other catalog > >>>> services implement differently and then breaks the SupportsNamespace > >>>> interface usage. > >>>> > >>>> Do you think iceberg needs to standardize the REST spec to make sure > the > >>>> logic is the same for using the SupportsNamespace interface? > >>>> Otherwise, the SupportsNamespace interface is meaningless because the > client > >>>> needs to handle different logic to create a namespace or other > operations > >>>> when using different catalog. > >>>> > >>>> For example, Nessie doesn't support auto-creating parent namespace: > >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/10630 > >>>> But the JDBC catalog supports it. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> Yong > >>>> >
