adutra commented on PR #2280: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2280#issuecomment-3491950266
> If yes, I am bit confused, if we know M2 is the one we eventually wanna make and M2 is a bit orthogonal to M1 why are making / investing on M1, a couple questions that would be really helpful to get your take : It's not orthogonal, M2 builds on top of M1. > 1. How long it will take for us to get M2 post M1 ? (you mentioned M2 is already in works ?) It depends if we want all the features in M2 or not. I would actually personally break M2 into smaller pieces. The most important piece is "Access checks based on the S3 location", which can be done in a few man-days. The "Nessie style" signed parameters would require a bit more than that, imo. > 2. why are we making M1 if M1 is not production recommended and based on my understanding it will never be. For the same reason we released the Events feature in incomplete state, with "beta" status: to get users feedback, and to work incrementally. > 3. when both M2 and M1 are there when will a user use M1 over M2 ? These are not "flavors" of remote signing. It's just one same feature, in two levels of maturity M1: experimental, M2: production-ready. > are we gonna introduce a new endpoint for M2 ? Yes, if we adopt Nessie's strategy for fast remote signing as proposed in the doc (it's optional). Note: this isn't a breaking change, as it's not user facing. Happy to discuss this topic more in depth in a Slack channel or during the next sync! -- 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]
