Re: [DISCUSS] Event listener interface

Thanks Andrew for the effort. I'm very much in favor of having the ability to receive events. From the doc and from the implementation it's hard to reason about the actual use cases / problems that the approach is going to tackle. Can you please enhance the document and describe the use cases

Re: Proposal to Separate Polaris Entities

As mentioned on the PR, I'm in favor of having concern-oriented APIs that provide use-case oriented functionality without exposing and force-pushing persistence implementation details upwards. The proposed approach requires call sites to deal with the parent-child and ID-based data modeling sp

Re: [DISCUSS] Event listener interface

Thanks for the review. I've responded to the specific comments on the PR. By definition events enable a large degree of user-specific customization so not all use cases are known in advance. It's important to view them as iterative and the initial PR doesn't need to try to cover everything. Re: f

Re: Apache Polaris (incubating) Maturity Model

That sounds great to me, we could hot link it to issues, it would be nice. Or even have it just as a project? On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > By the way, what do you think about adding the maturity model as > GitHub Discussion (as we have the roadmap) ? > > Please l

Policy Store: Introducing PolicyMappingRecord – Summary & PR for Review

Hi folks, Thanks, everyone, for the great discussion and feedback on the PolicyMappingRecord topic. To summarize, we have general agreement that we need a new record, PolicyMappingRecord, to represent and persist the relationship of a Policy Attachment (e.g., attaching a policy to a table). To su

Re: Apache Polaris (incubating) Maturity Model

Yeah. Good idea to have it as project. Regards JB Le mar. 18 mars 2025 à 20:44, Russell Spitzer a écrit : > That sounds great to me, we could hot link it to issues, it would be nice. > Or even have it just as a project? > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > >> By

Clear separation of REST APIs

Hi all, We have two copies of the Iceberg REST specification in the Polaris code base: * spec/iceberg-rest-catalog-open-api.yaml [1] and * spec/polaris-catalog-service.yaml [2] - via [5] [6] [7] [8] 'iceberg-rest-catalog-open-api.yaml' is declared to be a 1:1 copy of Iceberg's v.1.7.1 'open-