[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-16211?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17610969#comment-17610969
]
Vibhatha Lakmal Abeykoon commented on ARROW-16211:
--------------------------------------------------
Yes this is a good point. I think if we go on this route, we must make sure we
properly define these things in docs or provide examples of using the UDFs with
a few diverse examples covering these angles. Eitherway, I personally like the
nested registry idea, it gives the flexibility decide these things prior to
writing the programme. In general, we could assume one would put required
effort to clarify these and then write the programme. I think this is fair
enough to proceed with this approach.
Also, we may need to include a few test cases on behalf of this and test the
idea and make sure if things are not exposed to Python to create the nested
registries as well. I am still browsing through the said change (nested
registries). Please correct me if I am wrong.
cc [~westonpace] this approach sounds fair enough for to proceed. Appreciate
your thoughts.
> [C++][Python] Unregister compute functions
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARROW-16211
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-16211
> Project: Apache Arrow
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: C++, Python
> Reporter: Vibhatha Lakmal Abeykoon
> Priority: Major
>
> In general, when using UDFs, the user defines a function expecting a
> particular outcome. When building the program, there needs to be a way to
> update existing function kernels if it expands beyond what is planned before.
> In such situations, there should be a way to remove the existing definition
> and add a new definition. To enable this, the unregister functionality has to
> be included.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
