yanghua commented on pull request #2410: URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/2410#issuecomment-755878176
I agree with this operation so as not to block work progress. However, I always feel that in terms of project layout, if we treat writing or reading (or call it query) equally, it will be clearer. Currently, we clearly define the "client" as a writing client. On the query side, just use the ability of an external engine. However, if we hope to introduce a native java query client and a native Python query client in the future, how will we consider their location? Also, if you consider introducing file-level APIs. How to state more clearly and intuitively: `common`, `client`, `write`, `query`(`read`), `engine`...? I always think that introducing query-side things into common is not elegant enough. Although Hudi is just a library, we can also regard it as a "service" in the future. For any service, `Input` and `Output` are clear and equivalent. Of course, we can discuss these in-depth in the future. For now, let us merge it and complete the work. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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: [email protected]
