+1 (binding)
Le 08/12/2023 à 20:42, David Li a écrit :
Let's start a formal vote just so we're on the same page now that we've
discussed a few things.
I would like to propose we remove 'experimental' from Flight SQL and make it
stable:
- Remove the 'experimental' option from the Protobuf definitions (but leave the
option definition for future additions)
- Update specifications/documentation/implementations to no longer refer to
Flight SQL as experimental, and describe what stable means (no
backwards-incompatible changes)
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 Keep Flight SQL experimental because...
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 13:37, Weston Pace wrote:
+1
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
+1
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote:
I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other
standards in Arrow
Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I
agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall
spec.
It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like
extension APIs) that are likely to change
Andrew
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote:
Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk
ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything
currently in the spec.
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote:
I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the
discussion.
I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show
up
in
Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused
about
the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current
Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol
extensions
should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating
phase?
Laurent
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield <
emkornfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are
still
experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward?
Thanks,
Micah
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org>
wrote:
Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything
else
referring to Flight SQL as experimental.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote:
The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked
experimental
as
well. Would this include changes to any of those?
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon
<laur...@dremio.com.invalid
wrote:
we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we
consider
it
stable
+1 (not binding)
Laurent
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol
<m...@voltrondata.com.invalid
wrote:
+1, I agree with everyone else
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong
<james.du...@improving.com.invalid> wrote:
+1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: David Li <lidav...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM
To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental
Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the
beginning.
Given
that
it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should
we
remove
this
qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes
anymore.
This came up in a GitHub PR:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040
-David
