Sounds reasonable for me. I will then to continue to implement the missing interfaces for Parquet in pyarrow.parquet.
@wesm Can you take care that we easily depend on a pinned version of parquet-cpp in pyarrow’s travis builds? Uwe > Am 21.09.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>: > > 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
