+1 (binding)

Thanks all for the great discussion and for helping shape it better as a 
community!

Best,
Wei

> On May 17, 2026, at 10:39 AM, Aaron Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> +1 (non-binding)
> 
> Really nice feature!
> 
> Best,
> Aaron
> 
> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 6:38 PM Shivam Rastogi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1 (non-binding)
>> 
>> I successfully tested the coordinator with my TypeScript SDK. I also ran a
>> DAG that mixed Java, TypeScript, and Python tasks in a single pipeline,
>> exchanging data via XCom across all three runtimes. Every task ran
>> successfully end-to-end.
>> 
>> @TP and @Jason Do you think we can include the typescript sdk as part of
>> this AIP or will it require a separate AIP? In my opinion, it
>> doesn't require a new AIP as it will be an extension of the coordinator.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Shivam Rastogi
>> 
>> On Sat, 16 May 2026 at 11:36, Stefan Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 (non-binding).
>>> 
>>> Thanks TP and Jason
>>> 
>>> — really appreciate the way the discussion feedback got worked into the
>>> design, and the coordinator-interface shape that came out the other side.
>>> 
>>> Excited to see this land as the foundation for native multi-language task
>>> support in Airflow.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Stefan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 16, 2026, at 3:30 AM, Zhe-You(Jason) Liu <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi TP, Jens, Jarek, and all,
>>>> 
>>>> +1 (binding) from me as well.
>>>> 
>>>> I really appreciate all the thoughtful feedback and comments from
>>> everyone
>>>> that helped make AIP-108 and the coordinator interface more concrete. I
>>>> look forward to the coordinator interface becoming a strong foundation
>>> for
>>>> native multi-language task support in Airflow and for future language
>>>> integrations as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks everyone!
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Jason
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 6:27 PM Phani Kumar via dev <
>>> [email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> +1 (binding). Thanks TP, Jarek, Jens and Jason for the discussion and
>>>>> alignment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 3:26 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 (binding) -> Thanks for being receptive to all comments TP /
>> Jason.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And regarding Jens' point: yes, "naming is difficult". However, at
>> this
>>>>>> stage, this name is just a "codename" because it's "Java only,"
>>>>>> "experimental," mostly used internally (except for the package name
>> in
>>>>>> configuration), and lacks a separate installable distribution (it's
>>> just
>>>>> a
>>>>>> Python package name). When/If we turn it (hopefully soon) into
>>>>> full-fledged
>>>>>> coordinators - with common APIs and a compatibility strategy—it
>>> **might**
>>>>>> get real "coordinator" features; this might get handy. It might also
>> be
>>>>>> easier to "promote it" without migrations, which TP was rightfully
>>>>>> concerned about.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, I actually like that it's named "coordinators" now in the Python
>>>>>> package name because it allows for easy future evolution without
>>>>>> unnecessary migration issues. I was far more sceptical about
>>> implementing
>>>>>> the new distribution naming schema at this point - because that would
>>>>>> "anchor" us much more. I think our discussion resulted in a good
>> middle
>>>>>> ground: we avoid overcomplicating things (especially the development
>>>>>> process, operational complexity, and intra-compatibility issues),
>>>>> allowing
>>>>>> us to get something "working" quickly, while ensuring we aren't
>> blocked
>>>>> and
>>>>>> have a smooth path to implement the longer-term vision later.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think that was a very good discussion and outcome. Thanks again,
>> TP.
>>>>>> Also, thanks to (a bit more silent in this discussion) Jason for
>> being
>>> so
>>>>>> flexible. I really appreciate it. I know firsthand how difficult it
>> is
>>>>> when
>>>>>> a bigger vision you have is kind of trimmed-down, and when you see
>>> where
>>>>>> you want to go and others seem to "not see it". It forces you to
>> twist
>>>>> and
>>>>>> turn things to not lose the track of the bigger vision, while taking
>>> the
>>>>>> first baby step toward it. But my experience is that the end result
>>> might
>>>>>> eventually benefit from learnings along the way, so trimming the
>> first
>>>>>> steps is a good thing (even if it's very difficult mentally). I've
>> been
>>>>>> doing it for years in our dev environment. While it generally follows
>>> my
>>>>>> initial vision, it's very different now due to incremental steps and
>>>>>> tooling improvements along the way.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> J.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:52 AM Shahar Epstein <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1 (binding), well done TP and Jason.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Shahar
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:02 AM Tzu-ping Chung via dev <
>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I’m calling vote on AIP-108: Java Task SDK and the Language
>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>> Layer
>>>>>>>> AIP-108 Java Task SDK and the Language Coordinator Layer - Airflow
>> -
>>>>>>>> Apache Software Foundation <
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ>
>>>>>>>> cwiki.apache.org <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ>
>>>>>>>> [image: favicon.ico] <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ
>>> 
>>>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Discussion thread:
>>>>>>>> lists.apache.org
>>>>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057>
>>>>>>>> [image: favicon.ico]
>>>>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057>
>>>>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The vote will run for 5 days until Thursday, 21st May 2026, 07:00
>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, but only PMC members and
>> Committers'
>>>>>>>> votes are considered binding.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please vote accordingly
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve
>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Consider this my +1 vote (binding)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> TP
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to