Hi ShengKai, Documented the initial proposal here ,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YzBxLUPvluaZIvR0S3ktc5Be1FF4bNeTsXB9ILfgyWY/edit?usp=sharing Please review and let me know your thoughts. -Thanks, Swapna On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:39 PM Shengkai Fang <[email protected]> wrote: > I see your point, and I agree that your proposal is feasible. However, > there is one limitation to consider: the current loading mechanism first > discovers all available factories on the classpath and then filters them > based on the user-specified identifiers. > > In most practical scenarios, we would likely have only one generic factory > (e.g., a GenericPythonModelFactory) present in the classpath. This means > the framework would be able to load either PyTorch or TensorFlow > models—whichever is defined within that single generic implementation—but > not both simultaneously unless additional mechanisms are introduced. > > This doesn't block the proposal, but it’s something worth noting as we > design the extensibility model. We may want to explore ways to support > multiple user-defined providers more seamlessly in the future. > > Best, > Shengkai >
