+1 (non-binding) On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:23 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
