+1 on this suggestion, it would be good practice for everyone.
Bests,
William
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:56 AM Prashant Singh
wrote:
> +1 to the suggestion !
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 7:39 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov
> wrote:
>
> > Great suggestions, Robert! Thanks for writing them down.
> >
> > C
Hello Polaris Community,
I would like to share my proposal for a new service, the Polaris
Delegation Service, and to share the design document for discussion
and feedback. The Delegation Service is intended to optionally be
deployed alongside Polaris to handle the execution of certain
long-running
deployed?
>
> It becomes very complicated when we transition from a synchronous model to an
> asynchronous model. (Handling failures, task executor unavailability, status
> updates, etc.) We can have a separate discussion for those.
>
> Thank you,
> Anurag Mantripragada
&g
+1 (non-binding)
I verified the following:
- Source tarball (shasum and GPG signature)
- Build and test
- Verified server binary distribution
Bests,
William
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 4:13 AM Alex Dutra
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Checked:
>
> * Checksums & signatures
> * Source release builds,
ure a separate rich REST API for submitting tasks is really
> > > necessary. Proper synchronization among multiple nodes will
> > > probably require roundtrips to Persistence anyway, so task submission
> > could
> > > probably be done via Persistence.
> &
+1 (non-binding)
I verified the following:
- Source tarball (shasum and GPG signature)
- Build and test
- Verified server binary distribution
Bests,
William
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 1:54 PM yun zou wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> I tested the spark client using both --packages and --jars optio
overhead for users.
>
> PS: I have to mention that I'm a bit disappointed by this counter
> proposal to [1], where the latter did not receive a lot of attention
> since May 19.
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gg0kn89vmblmjgllxn7jkn8ky2k28f5l
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26
le.com/document/d/1TAAMjCtk4KuWSwfxpCBhhK9vM1k_3n7YE4L28slclXU)
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:03 AM William Hyun wrote:
> >
> > Hey Robert,
> >
> > Thank you for your review and comments!
> > To address some of your concerns,
> > 1. Polaris would fall back to local
Hey Robert!
Thank you for the draft PR.
I have taken a look and the general approach seems good to me.
However, one of my concerns would be the timeline to deliver this new
task framework refactoring as this could be intrusive due to the scope
of the change.
What do you plan as the ETA for deliver
sistence integration but
> with mock testing
> 3. Add persistence integration
> 4. Replace current task implementation with the new one
>
> I'll probably have more details soon-ish.
>
> Robert
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2180
>
>
>
> On Mon, J
10 matches
Mail list logo
