I don't agree with this approach right now. Here are my reasons: 1. The Parquet Python integration will need to depend both on PyArrow and the Arrow C++ libraries, so these libraries would generally need to be developed together
2. PyArrow would need to define and maintain a C++ or Cython API so that the equivalent of the current pyarrow.parquet library can access C-level data. For example: https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/python/pyarrow/parquet.pyx#L31 Cython does permit cross-project C API access (we are already doing cross-module Cython APi access within pyarrow). This adds additional complexity that I think we should avoid for now. 3. Maintaining a separate C++ build toolchain for a Python package adds additional maintenance and packaging burden on us My inclination is to keep the code where it is and make the Parquet extension optional. - Wes On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Uwe Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > Hello, > > as we have moved the Arrow<->Parquet C++ integration into parquet-cpp, we > still have to decide on how we are going to proceed with the Arrow<->Parquet > Python integration. For the moment, it seems that the best way to go ahead > is to pull the pyarrow.parquet module out into a separate Python package. > From an organisational point, I'm unclear how I should proceed here. Should > we put this in a separate repo? If so, as part of the Apache organisation? > > Uwe
