acezen opened a new pull request, #475: URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-graphar/pull/475
<!-- Thanks for contributing to GraphAr. If this is your first pull request you can find detailed information on [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/apache/graphar/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) The Apache GraphAr (incubating) community has restrictions on the naming of pr title. You can find instructions in [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/apache/graphar/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#title) too. --> ### Reason for this PR <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already tracked in an issue, please link to the issue here. Explaining clearly why this change is beneficial is important for the reviewers to understand the context. --> as issue #73 describes, currently the C++ library, Java, and scala library implement the format independently and they may have some miss-match between the implementation. It's better to standardize the format with protobuf and the libraries rely on the definition. The standardized format definition would bring much benefits: - More clear definition to the C++/Java code - Make the format cross-language compatibility - It would not only carry the schema of graph, but also contain the optional metadata like vertex num/edge num, the chunk statistics. ( which we serialize to files directly) - It can be evolve without change the library code immediately - [arrow](https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/format/Schema.fbs) and [parquet](https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/blob/master/src/main/thrift/parquet.thrift) are define their format with IDL too. But the changes may break the breaking changes to current public APIs if we adapt the implementation to the format protocol. ### What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> - Add format protocol definitions files with google protocol buffers - README about the format protocol definitions ### Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> yes ### Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> not yet <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please uncomment the line below and explain which changes are breaking. --> <!-- **BREAKING CHANGE: <description>** --> not yet <!-- Please uncomment the line below (and provide explanation) if the changes fix either (a) a security vulnerability, (b) a bug that caused incorrect or invalid data to be produced, or (c) a bug that causes a crash (even when the API contract is upheld). We use this to highlight fixes to issues that may affect users without their knowledge. For this reason, fixing bugs that cause errors don't count, since those are usually obvious. --> <!-- **Critical Fix: <description>** --> -- 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]
