Just pinging on this thread to hopefully encourage more comments and
engagement on the document. I still have to respond to a few of Antoine's
open comments, but so far there's only be the one individual who has given
feedback.
I've added a large "background context" section at the top of the docu
> (Correct me if I'm wrong Matt, but as I recall, UCX addresses aren't
hostnames but rather opaque byte blobs, for instance.)
You can use a hostname and port to create a ucx connection, but there is
separately an address object. A UCX address object is an opaque byte blob
that includes a whole mes
The idea is that the client would reuse the existing connection, in which case
the protocol and such are implicit. (If the client doesn't have a connection
anymore, it can't use the fallback anyways.)
I suppose this has the advantage that you could "fall back" to a known hostname
with a differ
Thanks for clarifying.
Given the relationship between these two proposals, would it also be
necessary to distinguish the scheme (or schemes) supported by the
originating Flight RPC service?
If that is the case, it may be preferred to use the "host" portion of the
URI rather than the "scheme" to d
An update here is that we are beginning development of a specific proposal,
and will keep the ticket and this mailing list thread up to date with our
status.
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 7:56 AM Raphael Taylor-Davies
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for starting this discussion. I think the decision to use
Ah, while I was thinking of it as useful for a fallback, I'm not specifying it
that way. Better ideas for names would be appreciated.
The actual precedence has never been specified. All endpoints are equivalent,
so clients may use what is "best". For instance, with Matt Topol's concurrent
prop
Update here is that we are making good progress towards the goal of
removing the distinction between user / built in functions.
If you have any feedback on this project or how you would like
the functions structured, please join the conversation on [1].
Thanks
Andrew
[1]: https://github.com/apac
Thanks for proposing this David.
I think the ability to include the Flight RPC service itself in the list of
endpoints from which data can be fetched is a helpful addition.
The current choice of name for the URI (arrow-flight-fallback://) seems to
imply that there is an order of precedence that s
Hi Dewey,
Le 12/02/2024 à 15:01, Dewey Dunnington a écrit :
Apache Arrow nanoarrow is a small C library for building and
interpreting Arrow C Data interface structures with bindings for users
of the R programming language.
Do you want to reconsider this sentence? It seems nanoarrow is starti
Congratulations, Jeffrey!
From: Alenka Frim
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 2:04 AM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Arrow committer: Jeffrey Vo
Congratulations Jeffrey!
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:30 PM Raphael Taylor-Davies
wrote:
> On behal
This seems like a good idea, and also improves consistency with clients that
erroneously assumed that the service endpoint was always in the list of
endpoints.
From: Antoine Pitrou
Date: Monday, February 12, 2024 at 6:05 AM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Flight RPC: add 'fallb
The proposal for session support/explicit catalogs is ready for review [1].
Absent any objections I will start the vote this week, but comments would be
appreciate as I'd like to avoid lots of revisions during the vote itself.
[1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/34817
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023
Hello,
This looks fine to me.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 12/02/2024 à 14:46, David Li a écrit :
Hello,
I'd like to propose a slight update to Flight RPC to make Flight SQL work
better in different deployment scenarios. Comments on the doc would be
appreciated:
https://docs.google.com/documen
Apologies for the delay...these are all done now!
[x] Closed GitHub milestone
[x] Added release to the Apache Reporter System
[x] Uploaded artifacts to Subversion
[x] Created GitHub release
[x] Submit R package to CRAN
[x] Submit Python package to PyPI
[x] Update Python package on conda-forge
[x]
The Apache Arrow community is pleased to announce the 0.4.0 release of
Apache Arrow nanoarrow. This initial release covers 44 resolved issues
from 5 contributors[1].
The release is available now from [2], release notes are available at
[3], and a blot post documenting new contributions is availabl
Hello,
I'd like to propose a slight update to Flight RPC to make Flight SQL work
better in different deployment scenarios. Comments on the doc would be
appreciated:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9M9FmsZhkewlT1mLibuceQO8ugI0-fqumVAXKFjVGg/edit?usp=sharing
The gist is that FlightEndpoint
16 matches
Mail list logo
