shangxinli commented on pull request #808: URL: https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr/pull/808#issuecomment-672093542
@ggershinsky, from what we have discussed above I think now the different opinions narrow to 'how to transport the settings from the extended ParquetWriteSupport to CryptoPropertiesFactory implementation'. Either we can let it through 'Configuration' or schema. I don't see the difference between these two approaches regarding the stated goal. Regarding which way is better, I think it depends. To some extend, adding the encryption properties to the schema is easier and less error-prone because it is just next to the schema elements. It seems Gabor got the point. We should let the user choose the one that fits their use case better. Some users can even choose RPC calls instead of the two we talked about. This is already 3rd. There could be more, for example, they can choose to load from configuration files etc. Again, it should be the user's choice. The column level properties being part of the column metadata should not be a problem because Avro, Spark already have that. If the change to add the metadata field is risky in terms of breaking existing code, that would be a concern. But it seems not the case. So I don't quite get the point why we don't want to do that. We have had several rounds of discussion here. If you still have questions or concerns, I would like to set up a meeting to go through that. Please let me know. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
