Thanks all, I've updated the header with the proposed versioning scheme. At this point I believe the core definitions are ready. (Note that I'm explicitly punting on [1][2][3] here.) Absent further comments, I'd like to do the following:
- Start a vote on mirroring adbc.h to arrow/format, as well adding docs/source/format/ADBC.rst that describes the header, the Java interface, the Go interface, and the versioning scheme (I will put up a PR beforehand) - Begin work on CI/packaging, with a release hopefully coinciding with Arrow 10.0.0 - Begin work on changes to the main repository, also hopefully in time for 10.0.0 (moving the Flight SQL driver to be part of apache/arrow; exposing it in PyArrow; possibly also exposing Acero via ADBC) [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/46 [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/55 [3]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-adbc/issues/59 On Sat, Sep 3, 2022, at 18:36, Matthew Topol wrote: > +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. >>
