Small comment: > Great to hear about the progress on Typescript as well, Shivam Rastogi. Since you are using the same interfaces and patterns, it can be folded into the same AIP.
Absolutely agree - as long as it follows the same APIs and "bridge-only" approach (which I understand it does). And I think it is a fantastic start to have both in now. Work is underway on the Go SDK ( https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/66984) concerning the coordinator. Once that work is complete and released, it will likely be a great time to focus on commonality extraction and promoting the coordinator to a reusable "concept" in Airflow. My rule of thumb is that making something reusable involves seeing three similar different things and extracting their commonalities—we might very quickly get to this point :). (This is what also happened in Steward/Magpie) - we had pr-triage + setiup + security in two different projects -> then we extracted it and now we also have 4th issues contributed from Groovy, but it would not be possible if not a lot of work on making things "common" so that we could adopt Groovy issues in almost no time - following the same patterns. On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 9:06 AM Aritra Basu <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Looking forward to seeing this merged!! Great job Jason and TP! > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Mon, 18 May 2026, 9:47 am Rahul Vats, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 binding, great work TP and Jason. > > > > Regards, > > Rahul Vats > > > > > > > > On Sun, 17 May 2026 at 17:49, Vikram Koka via dev < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 binding > > > > > > Glad to see this happen. > > > > > > Great to hear about the progress on Typescript as well, Shivam Rastogi. > > > Since you are using the same interfaces and patterns, it can be folded > > into > > > the same AIP. > > > > > > Vikram > > > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 10:08 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 binding. Excited to see this get pushed over the line > > > > > > > > -ash > > > > > > > > > On 17 May 2026, at 05:00, Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks all for the great discussion and for helping shape it better > > as > > > a > > > > community! > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Wei > > > > > > > > > >> On May 17, 2026, at 10:39 AM, Aaron Chen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > > > >> > > > > >> Really nice feature! > > > > >> > > > > >> Best, > > > > >> Aaron > > > > >> > > > > >> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 6:38 PM Shivam Rastogi < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> +1 (non-binding) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I successfully tested the coordinator with my TypeScript SDK. I > > also > > > > ran a > > > > >>> DAG that mixed Java, TypeScript, and Python tasks in a single > > > pipeline, > > > > >>> exchanging data via XCom across all three runtimes. Every task > ran > > > > >>> successfully end-to-end. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> @TP and @Jason Do you think we can include the typescript sdk as > > part > > > > of > > > > >>> this AIP or will it require a separate AIP? In my opinion, it > > > > >>> doesn't require a new AIP as it will be an extension of the > > > > coordinator. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Shivam Rastogi > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sat, 16 May 2026 at 11:36, Stefan Wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> +1 (non-binding). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks TP and Jason > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> — really appreciate the way the discussion feedback got worked > > into > > > > the > > > > >>>> design, and the coordinator-interface shape that came out the > > other > > > > side. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Excited to see this land as the foundation for native > > multi-language > > > > task > > > > >>>> support in Airflow. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > >>>> Stefan > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> On May 16, 2026, at 3:30 AM, Zhe-You(Jason) Liu < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Hi TP, Jens, Jarek, and all, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> +1 (binding) from me as well. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I really appreciate all the thoughtful feedback and comments > from > > > > >>>> everyone > > > > >>>>> that helped make AIP-108 and the coordinator interface more > > > > concrete. I > > > > >>>>> look forward to the coordinator interface becoming a strong > > > > foundation > > > > >>>> for > > > > >>>>> native multi-language task support in Airflow and for future > > > language > > > > >>>>> integrations as well. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Thanks everyone! > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Best, > > > > >>>>> Jason > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 6:27 PM Phani Kumar via dev < > > > > >>>> [email protected]> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> +1 (binding). Thanks TP, Jarek, Jens and Jason for the > > discussion > > > > and > > > > >>>>>> alignment. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 3:26 PM Jarek Potiuk < > [email protected]> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 (binding) -> Thanks for being receptive to all comments > TP / > > > > >>> Jason. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> And regarding Jens' point: yes, "naming is difficult". > However, > > > at > > > > >>> this > > > > >>>>>>> stage, this name is just a "codename" because it's "Java > only," > > > > >>>>>>> "experimental," mostly used internally (except for the > package > > > name > > > > >>> in > > > > >>>>>>> configuration), and lacks a separate installable distribution > > > (it's > > > > >>>> just > > > > >>>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>> Python package name). When/If we turn it (hopefully soon) > into > > > > >>>>>> full-fledged > > > > >>>>>>> coordinators - with common APIs and a compatibility > strategy—it > > > > >>>> **might** > > > > >>>>>>> get real "coordinator" features; this might get handy. It > might > > > > also > > > > >>> be > > > > >>>>>>> easier to "promote it" without migrations, which TP was > > > rightfully > > > > >>>>>>> concerned about. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> So, I actually like that it's named "coordinators" now in the > > > > Python > > > > >>>>>>> package name because it allows for easy future evolution > > without > > > > >>>>>>> unnecessary migration issues. I was far more sceptical about > > > > >>>> implementing > > > > >>>>>>> the new distribution naming schema at this point - because > that > > > > would > > > > >>>>>>> "anchor" us much more. I think our discussion resulted in a > > good > > > > >>> middle > > > > >>>>>>> ground: we avoid overcomplicating things (especially the > > > > development > > > > >>>>>>> process, operational complexity, and intra-compatibility > > issues), > > > > >>>>>> allowing > > > > >>>>>>> us to get something "working" quickly, while ensuring we > aren't > > > > >>> blocked > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>> have a smooth path to implement the longer-term vision later. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> I think that was a very good discussion and outcome. Thanks > > > again, > > > > >>> TP. > > > > >>>>>>> Also, thanks to (a bit more silent in this discussion) Jason > > for > > > > >>> being > > > > >>>> so > > > > >>>>>>> flexible. I really appreciate it. I know firsthand how > > difficult > > > it > > > > >>> is > > > > >>>>>> when > > > > >>>>>>> a bigger vision you have is kind of trimmed-down, and when > you > > > see > > > > >>>> where > > > > >>>>>>> you want to go and others seem to "not see it". It forces you > > to > > > > >>> twist > > > > >>>>>> and > > > > >>>>>>> turn things to not lose the track of the bigger vision, while > > > > taking > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>>>> first baby step toward it. But my experience is that the end > > > result > > > > >>>> might > > > > >>>>>>> eventually benefit from learnings along the way, so trimming > > the > > > > >>> first > > > > >>>>>>> steps is a good thing (even if it's very difficult mentally). > > > I've > > > > >>> been > > > > >>>>>>> doing it for years in our dev environment. While it generally > > > > follows > > > > >>>> my > > > > >>>>>>> initial vision, it's very different now due to incremental > > steps > > > > and > > > > >>>>>>> tooling improvements along the way. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> J. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:52 AM Shahar Epstein < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> +1 (binding), well done TP and Jason. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Shahar > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:02 AM Tzu-ping Chung via dev < > > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I’m calling vote on AIP-108: Java Task SDK and the Language > > > > >>>>>> Coordinator > > > > >>>>>>>>> Layer > > > > >>>>>>>>> AIP-108 Java Task SDK and the Language Coordinator Layer - > > > > Airflow > > > > >>> - > > > > >>>>>>>>> Apache Software Foundation < > > > > >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ> > > > > >>>>>>>>> cwiki.apache.org < > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [image: favicon.ico] < > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Discussion thread: > > > > >>>>>>>>> lists.apache.org > > > > >>>>>>>>> < > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057> > > > > >>>>>>>>> [image: favicon.ico] > > > > >>>>>>>>> < > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057> > > > > >>>>>>>>> < > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The vote will run for 5 days until Thursday, 21st May 2026, > > > 07:00 > > > > >>>> UTC. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, but only PMC members and > > > > >>> Committers' > > > > >>>>>>>>> votes are considered binding. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Please vote accordingly > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve > > > > >>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > >>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Consider this my +1 vote (binding) > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> TP > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
