> The problem with bundling all new REST APIs into runtime/service is that it _forces_ all downstream builds to expose the new endpoints.
I'm not fully convinced by that argument. If a downstream project already maintains a custom Polaris build, it currently can disable the feature with a feature flag. So the mere presence of an endpoint in runtime/service does not necessarily mean downstream deployments must expose it. I also don't think the metrics reporting work is a strong example for this particular point. IIUC, the metrics query REST API hasn't even been merged yet. Most of the work has been around the SPI, persistence layer, and reporting infrastructure. In fact, metrics reporting REST APIs were present in Polaris from the very beginning. Should we move it to a separate module? With that, it's not clear to me how placing a future REST endpoint in runtime/service would have materially impacted downstream integrations. More broadly, I think we should distinguish between different kinds of features. Metrics and events are optional capabilities that naturally fit separate modules and SPIs. An OSI semantic model is different. It is a first class catalog entity, just like a table, view, namespace, or policy, with its own lifecycle, authorization model, and metadata. I would therefore expect it to live alongside the rest of the Polaris metadata model, while still being disabled via a feature flag if an operator doesn't need it. To me, the stronger arguments for modularization are separation of concerns, clear extension points, or supporting alternate implementations. Those are architectural benefits that can justify additional modules. But I don't think "all new REST APIs should live in separate modules" should be a blanket rule. Could you elaborate on scenarios where a feature flag would not be sufficient and a separate module is required? Yufei On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 10:28 AM Anand Kumar Sankaran via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > All, > > We (Workday) currently uptake Polaris as Maven dependencies and add > functionality on top of the core libraries. It started as authentication > enhancements, but now I have custom listeners for events, custom listeners > for metrics persistence, a SCIM interface, and there is an ask from a data > partner to expose semantic information via OSI. Also, till the Iceberg > community sorts out FGAC and / or metadata labels, there are asks to share > some form of hints for enforcing authorization on the data partners' side. > Our current use-cases are all federated data where our data partners > (Salesforce, Snowflake, Databricks, Google and Amazon) federate Workday > data through their catalog services. > > Our timelines are very aggressive, so I have added the functionality that > I need on our custom build, then turn around and contribute it to the > Polaris OSS and when we uptake new features, delete the code I added. > Thankfully, Quarkus makes this relatively easy. There are some places where > I can not extend easily and need it to be done in the Polaris OSS first > (AWS session tags was one such feature). > > I want to share a concrete data point from recent work on the metrics > reporting feature (PR #4115 / #4756) that illustrates why each of these > matters. > > We initially bundled the reporting SPI, the default no-op/logging > implementations, the REST query service, the OpenAPI spec, auth privilege > additions, and JDBC persistence all in a single PR. The review rightly > called it out as too broad. Splitting it required two rounds of significant > rework: extracting the SPI into its own module > (extensions/metrics-reports/spi), moving the durable query path and REST > service into a follow-up PR, and re-wiring CDI producers and downstream > builds multiple times as the shape changed. > > A few specifics that map directly to Dmitri's points: > > - Isolated Gradle modules for REST API code (point 1): Putting the metrics > query REST service (api/metrics-reports-service) in its own module meant > the core runtime doesn't have to expose those endpoints. Downstream builds > that don't want the query API simply omit that dependency. We learned this > the hard way after bundling it into runtime/service initially. > - Feature-specific Persistence SPIs (point 5): MetricsPersistence and > IcebergMetricsReporter both needed their own SPI layer so downstream > implementations (JDBC, no-op, custom) can be swapped without touching > polaris-core. Getting this layering right was the bulk of the review churn. > - Separate PRs for entity changes (point 4): The SQL schema additions for > metrics tables are in PR2 specifically because mixing schema migrations > with SPI/API changes, reviewers couldn't easily assess the surface area of > each concern. > > The discipline Dmitri is proposing would have saved us multiple rebase > cycles and reviewer back-and-forth. > > — > anand > > From: Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 9:43 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Modular design for new features > > This Message Is From an External Sender > This message came from outside your organization. > Report Suspicious< > https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/Iz9xO38YGHZK!YhNDZAGr2cumY1yLOWMt3qBhAE0f6q0IIB7I3WbI-PfK7oi8_Xzj6bOk39QvB5F7ynZ0mNWbr6KptyL4uYInsNJfnl_Eaf4R_c1kMmyaKH_hCt9dIdpgQuj98mWrMS2Y$ > > > > > HI Russell, > > I'm less convinced we need a blanket policy of isolated Gradle modules, > feature-specific SPIs, and staged entity-then-REST PRs for every new > proposal. > > > Fair enough. That might indeed have been overkill in my initial email. > > I think it should be fine to combine Entity changes with REST API changes > in the same PR as long as the PR remains reasonably small for ease of > review. > > My concern was mainly driven by the reviewer's perspective, since > validating feature boundaries is harder when entity changes are > interspersed with REST changes. > > Most deployments run the standard server release anyway; [...] > > > I cannot agree with that. I believe we have several OSS users with custom > Polaris-based builds. I'm pretty sure all "intergators" have custom builds > too. This cannot be decided based on undifferentiated deployment counts > alone. We need to consider the usability of the project for downstream > builds. > > The problem with bundling all new REST APIs into `runtime/service` is that > it _forces_ all downstream builds to expose the new endpoints. > > I think the inconvenience of dealing with multiple source modules is rather > minor in modern IDEs, while the benefit for downstream project flexibility > is clear. > > I wonder if Anand could share his contributor experience based on [4115]. > > [4115] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4115__;!!Iz9xO38YGHZK!6uV890MsdBYLWklaXHA3BkjgieXFNpSHU7qwX6QObHmvU31sQaVFT-4ZCkpnmffb_CH6mgTHwpjV6Rf6rw$ > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 12:02 PM Russell Spitzer < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks for raising this, Dmitri. I agree we should be careful about > > coupling new features into core and runtime in ways that are hard to > > unwind, and I'm on board with feature flags and keeping optional behavior > > off default paths where that makes sense. > > > > I'm less convinced we need a blanket policy of isolated Gradle modules, > > feature-specific SPIs, and staged entity-then-REST PRs for every new > > proposal. A big reason is contributor experience: most of the existing > > server code lives in a small number of well-understood modules > > (polaris-core, polaris-runtime-service, the generated API jars). Someone > > proposing scan metrics or a semantic layer API can find similar REST > > handlers, persistence patterns, and tests without first learning a module > > taxonomy or deciding which of several new jars their change belongs in. > > > > I'd rather optimize for single-module (or few-module) contributions by > > default: add the endpoint, service logic, and tests alongside existing > > similar code. I can understand bundling sets of functionality together > like > > if we did want to separate Polaris specific from Iceberg specific modules > > but I think the codebase is actually more usable with fewer modules > rather > > than more. If a feature later proves it needs independent deployment, a > > pluggable backend, or a separate schema lifecycle, we can extract it > then. > > > > Most deployments run the standard server release anyway; downstream > custom > > assembly is possible but doesn't seem to be a widespread pattern today. > > Given that, I'd support lighter guidelines: > > > > 1. Don't entangle new features into core call paths unnecessarily > > 2. Use flags for optional capabilities > > 3. Default to adding code where contributors already look > > 4. Split into a separate module only when there's a demonstrated need > > > > Happy to discuss where that line should be. > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:06 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Polaris has been getting many new and interesting proposals lately. > This > > is > > > certainly good for the project. > > > > > > On the other hand, we need to think about the stability and usability > of > > > the system as new features are introduced. > > > > > > Polaris is currently used in two modes: a) as a ready-made server for > the > > > default set of features (source or binary releases) and/or b) as a > basis > > > for custom downstream builds (from Maven artifacts). > > > > > > I'd like to propose the following general principles, which I hope will > > > allow quick feature development without adding risks to either of the > > usage > > > avenues. > > > > > > 1) Put code for new REST API services in isolated Gradle modules. > > > > > > 2) Wire those services into the runtime/server explicitly, behind > feature > > > flags where appropriate. > > > > > > 3) Do not add hard dependencies from runtime/service or polaris-core to > > > REST API modules. > > > > > > 4) If a feature requires new Polaris entity types, add those core model > > > changes in a dedicated PR so the entity and persistence contract can be > > > reviewed on its own. New REST service modules can depend on those core > > > entities, but existing core call paths should not depend on > > > feature-specific entities. > > > > > > 5) Add new Persistence SPI(s) for non-entity storage (e.g. Scan/Commit > > > Metrics). Keep new SPI classes in feature-specific Gradle modules. > > > > > > 6) Use isolated SQL schema definition files for each feature involving > > > non-entity JDBC persistence. > > > > > > That is: separate .sql files for Metrics, Events, etc. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > >
