you provided.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alina (Xi) Li
>
> From: Sutou Kouhei
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:04 PM
> To: dev@arrow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Flight SQL ODBC] Arrow Bitmap UI Banner for Installer
>
> Hi,
>
> Can we us
Thanks Kou, will look into using the link you provided.
Cheers,
Alina (Xi) Li
From: Sutou Kouhei
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:04 PM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Flight SQL ODBC] Arrow Bitmap UI Banner for Installer
Hi,
Can we use https
Hi,
Can we use https://arrow.apache.org/visual_identity/ for it?
Thanks,
--
kou
In
"[Flight SQL ODBC] Arrow Bitmap UI Banner for Installer" on Tue, 19 Aug 2025
21:35:19 +,
Alina Li wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am working on an Arrow Flight SQL ODBC WiX msi installer on Wind
>
> would having the C++
> client be enough here or are we looking for both the client and the server
> side?
I would think we want a C++ server as well.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:39 AM Kyle Porter
wrote:
> We're just going into the C++ implementation now - would having the C++
> client be eno
We're just going into the C++ implementation now - would having the C++
client be enough here or are we looking for both the client and the server
side?
*Kyle Porter*
CEO
Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
Office: +1.778.331.3355 | Direct: +1.604.441.7318 | ky...@bitquilltech.com
https://www.bitquill.com
If it's just the Protobuf it would at least not generate any code, but at that
point it would probably be better to just have Kyle & co. copy-paste the file
into the C++ PR until we can get it all settled.
-David
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021, at 17:53, Micah Kornfield wrote:
> In the interest of avoidi
In the interest of avoiding bit-rot I'm OK with checking in the PR once its
been reviewed, but we probably shouldn't do an official release of it (I'm
not sure if this is feasible with our current release scripts).
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 2:46 PM David Li wrote:
> Sorry, you're right - I got the
Sorry, you're right - I got the process mixed up. Having two implementations
ready before a vote was discussed a few years back [1] so we should have the
C++ implementation ready first. Apologies for the confusion.
In the meantime, I'll give the Java implementation a more thorough review when
I
>
> > To Micah's question, yes, we're going to hold a vote and treat it as
> part of the spec, though even then like Flight itself it will be
> "experimental" for a time.
I'm not quite clear on what we would be voting on without the second
implementation being present (even if it remains pre-1.0.
To Micah's question, yes, we're going to hold a vote and treat it as part of
the spec, though even then like Flight itself it will be "experimental" for a
time.
I think given the progress here, at least if there's no major comments about
the Protobuf spec itself, we should be holding a vote in
I believe that is the expectation, however not being fluent in the full
workings I defer to those who know better.
I can say that the C++ implementation will be something we will be working
on in the immediate future.
*Kyle Porter*
CEO
Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
Office: +1.778.331.3355 | Direct:
I just wanted to confirm that the intent is that this is going to be
treated as an addition to the spec (so before adoption there will be a C++
implementation and formal Vote). In the meantime it will be treated as
experimental?
-Micah
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 9:19 AM Kyle Porter
wrote:
> Than
Thanks Aldrin,
Yes, Flight SQL should be language agnostic where the initial
implementation is in Java. There are plans to create the C++ implementation
as well after, and then others can be worked on as needed.
Best,
*Kyle Porter*
CEO
Bit Quill Technologies Inc.
Office: +1.778.331.3355 | Direct
Thanks Kyle!
Out of curiosity, I don't see links to FlightSQL PRs/issues for the other
languages. I assume the proto itself would be language agnostic, and I
haven't followed closely enough to know the status of implementations for
the other languages. Is that something that is usually tracked in
14 matches
Mail list logo
