Yes, that's ok with me.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 18/07/2020 à 18:30, Micah Kornfield a écrit :
> Antoine are you OK with leaving as is?
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:06 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
>
>> My position is that:
>>
>> * Features only needs to be set with the Schema message, it wouldn't
>>
Antoine are you OK with leaving as is?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:06 PM Wes McKinney wrote:
> My position is that:
>
> * Features only needs to be set with the Schema message, it wouldn't
> be necessary or useful to set it for other message types
> * The metadata version may serve a purpose beyon
My position is that:
* Features only needs to be set with the Schema message, it wouldn't
be necessary or useful to set it for other message types
* The metadata version may serve a purpose beyond indicating features
(and it has in the past already)
* Thus, it isn't necessarily inconsistent to hav
I think this was overlooked. Schema made more sense to me because I was
intending it to be at most once per stream. If we can come to agreement I
can open a PR to change it. But we would need a new release candidate
(this can't wait until next release)
On Friday, July 17, 2020, Antoine Pitrou
Any of the dependent message types constituting an IPC stream or file
are not interpretable without the Schema message, so the Schema
basically "governs" the other messages. So it is sufficient to examine
the features only once at schema resolution time, and attaching
features to a RecordBatch mess
