danielcweeks commented on PR #6169: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/6169#issuecomment-1317273978
> 1 general question regarding this PR, @nastra @rdblue @danielcweeks this is a feature very specific to AWS S3. What is the general guideline in the community for adding this as a part of the OpenAPI spec? In my mind the spec should be something generic for Iceberg, and not related to any specific cloud provider. Although many cloud storage providers have built S3 compatible API, but mostly just do it to some extent to support basic operations like get and put object. I would imaging signing with sigv4 is still a very AWS-specific thing, but maybe I am wrong about that. > > Overall, have we thought about making this spec more generic, or is that not possible to achieve without being cloud provider specific? @jackye1995 I think the purpose behind the open-api doc is just to be clear about what the expectations are from a call/response/error perspective. While it has some overlap with the other open-api doc, they are separate entities. This signer is specific to AWS and I think that's fine since the signer implementation is in the `aws` module. It may make more sense to put the open-api doc in the `aws` module since it really only applies there (@nastra was going to look into that option). As a general pattern, all cloud providers sign requests in some form and we may see similar implementations using different protocols in the future, but it may also be that this can be generalized in the future. -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
