+1 from me on the strategy proposed by Kou. That would be my preference also. I agree it is preferable to be versioned independently.
--Matt On Sat, Sep 3, 2022, 6:24 PM Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Do we have a preference for versioning strategy? Should we > > proceed in lockstep with the Arrow C++ library et. al. and > > release "ADBC 1.0.0" (the API standard) with "drivers > > version 10.0.0", or use an independent versioning scheme? > > (For example, release API standard and components at > > "1.0.0". Then further releases of components that do not > > change the spec would be "1.1", "1.2", ...; if/when we > > change the spec, start over with "2.0", "2.1", ...) > > I like an independent versioning schema. I assume that ADBC > doesn't need backward incompatible changes frequently. How > about incrementing major version only when ADBC needs > any backward incompatible changes? > > e.g.: > > 1. Release ADBC (the API standard) 1.0.0 > 2. Release adbc_driver_manager 1.0.0 > 3. Release adbc_driver_postgres 1.0.0 > 4. Add a new feature to adbc_driver_postgres without > any backward incompatible changes > 5. Release adbc_driver_postgres 1.1.0 > 6. Fix a bug in adbc_driver_manager without > any backward incompatible changes > 7. Release adbc_driver_manager 1.0.1 > 8. Add a backward incompatible change to adbc_driver_manager > 9. Release adbc_driver_manager 2.0.0 > 10. Add a new feature to ADBC without any > backward incompatible changes > 11. Release ADBC (the API standard) 1.1.0 > > > Thanks, > -- > kou > > In <7b20d730-b85e-4818-b99e-3335c40c2...@www.fastmail.com> > "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, 01 Sep 2022 > 16:36:43 -0400, > "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Following up here with some specific questions: > > > > Matt Topol added some Go definitions [1] (thanks!) I'd assume we want to > vote on those as well? > > > > How should the process work for Java/Go? For C/C++, I assume we'd treat > it like the C Data Interface and copy adbc.h to format/ after a vote, and > then vote on releases of components. Or do we really only consider the C > header as the 'format', with the others being language-specific affordances? > > > > What about for Java and for Go? We could vote on and tag a release for > Go, and add a documentation page that links to the Java/Go definitions at a > specific revision (as the equivalent 'format' definition for Java/Go)? Or > would we vendor the entire Java module/Go package as the 'format'? > > > > Do we have a preference for versioning strategy? Should we proceed in > lockstep with the Arrow C++ library et. al. and release "ADBC 1.0.0" (the > API standard) with "drivers version 10.0.0", or use an independent > versioning scheme? (For example, release API standard and components at > "1.0.0". Then further releases of components that do not change the spec > would be "1.1", "1.2", ...; if/when we change the spec, start over with > "2.0", "2.1", ...) > > > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/blob/main/go/adbc/adbc.go > > > > -David > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022, at 10:56, Sutou Kouhei wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> OK. I'll send pull requests for GLib and Ruby soon. > >> > >>> I'm curious if you have a particular use case in mind. > >> > >> I don't have any production-ready use case yet but I want to > >> implement an Active Record adapter for ADBC. Active Record > >> is the O/R mapper for Ruby on Rails. Implementing Web > >> application by Ruby on Rails is one of major Ruby use > >> cases. So providing Active Record interface for ADBC will > >> increase Apache Arrow users in Ruby community. > >> > >> NOTE: Generally, Ruby on Rails users don't process large > >> data but they sometimes need to process large (medium?) data > >> in a batch process. Active Record adapter for ADBC may be > >> useful for such use case. > >> > >>> There's a little bit more API cleanup to do [1]. If you > >>> have comments on that or anything else, I'd appreciate > >>> them. Otherwise, pull requests would also be appreciated. > >> > >> OK. I'll open issues/pull requests when I find > >> something. For now, I think that "MODULE" type library > >> instead of "SHARED" type library in CMake terminology > >> [cmake] is better for driver modules. (I'll open an issue > >> for this later.) > >> > >> [cmake]: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/command/add_library.html > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -- > >> kou > >> > >> In <e6380315-94aa-4dd1-8685-268edd597...@www.fastmail.com> > >> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Sat, 27 Aug 2022 > >> 15:28:56 -0400, > >> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I would be very happy to see GLib/Ruby bindings! I'm curious if you > have a particular use case in mind. > >>> > >>> There's a little bit more API cleanup to do [1]. If you have comments > on that or anything else, I'd appreciate them. Otherwise, pull requests > would also be appreciated. > >>> > >>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/79 > >>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, at 21:53, Sutou Kouhei wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for sharing the current status! > >>>> I understand. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, can I add GLib/Ruby bindings to apache/arrow-adbc > >>>> before we release the first version? (I want to use ADBC > >>>> from Ruby.) Or should I wait for the first release? If I can > >>>> work on it now, I'll open pull requests for it. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -- > >>>> kou > >>>> > >>>> In <8703efd9-51bd-4f91-b550-73830667d...@www.fastmail.com> > >>>> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Fri, 26 Aug 2022 > >>>> 11:03:26 -0400, > >>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thank you Kou! > >>>>> > >>>>> At least initially, I don't think I'll be able to complete the > Dataset integration in time. So 10.0.0 probably won't ship with a hard > dependency. That said I am hoping to have PyArrow take an optional > dependency (so Flight SQL can finally be available from Python). > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, at 01:01, Sutou Kouhei wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As a maintainer of Linux packages, I want apache/arrow-adbc > >>>>>> to be released before apache/arrow is released so that > >>>>>> apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm can depend on apache/arrow-adbc's > >>>>>> .deb/.rpm. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (If Apache Arrow Dataset uses apache/arrow-adbc, > >>>>>> apache/arrow's .deb/.rpm needs to depend on > >>>>>> apache/arrow-adbc's .deb/.rpm.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We can add .deb/.rpm related files > >>>>>> (dev/tasks/linux-packages/ in apache/arrow) to > >>>>>> apache/arrow-adbc to build .deb/.rpm for apache/arrow-adbc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> FYI: I did it for datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * > https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/tree/main/package > >>>>>> * > >>>>>> > https://github.com/datafusion-contrib/datafusion-c/blob/main/.github/workflows/package.yaml > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I can work on it in apache/arrow-adbc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> kou > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In <5cbf2923-4fb4-4c5e-b11d-007209fdd...@www.fastmail.com> > >>>>>> "Re: [DISC] Improving Arrow's database support" on Thu, 25 Aug > 2022 > >>>>>> 11:51:08 -0400, > >>>>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fair enough, thank you. I'll try to expand a bit. (Sorry for the > wall of text that follows…) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> These are the components: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Core adbc.h header > >>>>>>> - Driver manager for C/C++ > >>>>>>> - Flight SQL-based driver > >>>>>>> - Postgres-based driver (WIP) > >>>>>>> - SQLite-based driver (more of a testbed for me than an actual > component - I don't think we'd actually distribute this) > >>>>>>> - Java core interfaces > >>>>>>> - Java driver manager > >>>>>>> - Java JDBC-based driver > >>>>>>> - Java Flight SQL-based driver > >>>>>>> - Python driver manager > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think: adbc.h gets mirrored into the Arrow repo. The Flight SQL > drivers get moved to the main Arrow repo and distributed as part of the > regular Arrow releases. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For the rest of the components: they could be packaged > individually, but versioned and released together. Also, each C/C++ driver > probably needs a corresponding Python package so Python users do not have > to futz with shared library configurations. (See [1].) So for instance, > installing PyArrow would also give you the Flight SQL driver, and `pip > install adbc_postgres` would get you the Postgres-based driver. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That would mean setting up separate CI, release, etc. (and > eventually linking Crossbow & Conbench as well?). That does mean > duplication of effort, but the trade off is avoiding bloating the main > release process even further. However, I'd like to hear from those closer > to the release process on this subject - if it would make people's lives > easier, we could merge everything into one repo/process. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Integrations would be distributed as part of their respective > packages (e.g. Arrow Dataset would optionally link to the driver manager). > So the "part of Arrow 10.0.0" aspect means having a stable interface for > adbc.h, and getting the Flight SQL drivers into the main repo. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/53 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022, at 11:34, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:09:44 -0400 > >>>>>>>> "David Li" <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Since it's been a while, I'd like to give an update. There are > also a few questions I have around distribution. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>>>> - Supported in C, Java, and Python. > >>>>>>>>> - For C/Python, there are basic drivers wrapping Flight SQL and > SQLite, with a draft of a libpq (Postgres) driver (using nanoarrow). > >>>>>>>>> - For Java, there are drivers wrapping JDBC and Flight SQL. > >>>>>>>>> - For Python, there's low-level bindings to the C API, and the > DBAPI interface on top of that (+a few extension methods resembling > DuckDB/Turbodbc). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There's drafts of integration with Ibis [1], DBI (R), and > DuckDB. (I'd like to thank Hannes and Kirill for their comments, as well as > Antoine, Dewey, and Matt here.) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to have this as part of 10.0.0 in some fashion. > However, I'm not sure how we would like to handle packaging and > distribution. In particular, there are several sub-components for each > language (the driver manager + the drivers), increasing the work. Any > thoughts here? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry, forgot to answer here. But I think your question is too > broadly > >>>>>>>> formulated. It probably deserves a case-by-case discussion, IMHO. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering how we want to handle this in terms of > specification - I assume we'd consider the core header file/Java interfaces > a spec like the C Data Interface/Flight RPC, and vote on them/mirror them > into the format/ directory? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That sounds like the right way to me indeed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Antoine. >
