Hi everyone,
Thanks for the feedback! I've created PR:
https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/906 to implement the proposed
solution. I've also linked the PR to the issue pointed out by Robert.
Best regards,
Honah
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 1:54 AM Robert Stupp wrote:
> Noting: there's an issue t
Noting: there's an issue to track this:
https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/553
On 28.01.25 21:24, Yufei Gu wrote:
Thanks Honah for picking it up. The approach looks good to me overall. Left
some comments in the PR.
Yufei
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
Usi
Thanks Honah for picking it up. The approach looks good to me overall. Left
some comments in the PR.
Yufei
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:22 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
wrote:
> Using multiple YAML files per API / API area sounds good to me.
>
> We should definitely use the Iceberg REST API YAML without
Using multiple YAML files per API / API area sounds good to me.
We should definitely use the Iceberg REST API YAML without any
modifications to avoid accidental mistakes.
Cheers,
Dmitri.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 2:28 AM Honah J. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks for the proposal and all the grea
Hi Honah
That’s a much more neat approach. I like the proposal. It would simplify
the “move” of APIs between IRC and Polaris.
I will take a new look on the PR but it sounds good.
Thanks !
Regards
JB
Le mar. 28 janv. 2025 à 08:28, Honah J. a écrit :
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks for the proposal a
Hi everyone,
Thanks for the proposal and all the great discussion! I also agree that we
should separate Polaris-only APIs from the IRC spec to keep the IRC spec
consistent with the upstream version. I’d like to propose another way to
achieve this, as some APIs may not need a separate prefix but ar
Hi Jack,
Welcome back!
I like your idea to separate Iceberg REST Apis and Polaris REST Apis.
It's cleaner and it will certainly simplify the maintenance/update
(especially for the Iceberg REST APIs).
About the Polaris REST APIs, that's the idea: we start first in
Polaris but there is good chance
> It is possible for some Polaris APIs to be developed first to unblock
support of certain use cases, and later contributed back to the IRC spec,
depending on the appetite of both communities.
This was exactly the intention with the notification API. It was never
expected to live long-term in the
Thanks, Jack, for bringing this up! I think separating the Iceberg REST
APIs from the other Polaris REST APIs is an excellent idea. Not only does
it simplify any potential future rebases of the Iceberg REST spec, but it
also provides developers with a clearer distinction between the different
sets
