Hi, Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
OK. I'll change the current specifications/implementations to the followings: * Remove CloseFlightInfo (if nobody objects it) * RefreshFlightEndpoint -> RenewFlightEndpoint * RenewFlightEndpoint(FlightEndpoint) -> RenewFlightEndpoint(RenewFlightEndpointRequest) * CancelFlightInfo(FlightInfo) -> CancelFlightInfo(CancelFlightInfoRequest) Thanks, -- kou In <CAH4123YJaP7ZKZAUmznZ0CSsdb+6tsOJzvFJGiqEd=bcwkz...@mail.gmail.com> "Re: [DISCUSS][Format][Flight] Result set expiration support" on Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:51:55 -0400, Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That said, I think it's reasonable to only have Cancel at the protocol > level. > > I'd be in favor of only having Cancel too. In theory calling Cancel on > something that has already completed should just be equivalent to calling > Close anyways rather than requiring a client to guess and call Close if > Cancel errors or something. > >> So this may not be needed for now. How about accepting a >> specific request message instead of FlightEndpoint directly >> as "PersistFlightEndpoint" input? > > I'm also in favor of this. > >> I think Refresh was fine, but if there's confusion, I like Kou's > suggestion of Renew the best. > > I'm in the same boat as David here, I think Refresh was fine but like the > suggestion of Renew best if we want to avoid any confusion. > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 2:55 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > >> >> Doesn't protobuf ensure forwards compatibility? Why would it break? >> >> At worse, you can include the changes necessary for it to compile >> cleanly, without adding support for the new fields/methods? >> >> >> Le 22/06/2023 à 02:16, Sutou Kouhei a écrit : >> > Hi, >> > >> > The following part in the original e-mail is the one: >> > >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/36009 is an >> >> implementation of this proposal. The pull requests has the >> >> followings: >> >> >> >> 1. Format changes: >> >> * format/Flight.proto >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/36009/files#diff-53b6c132dcc789483c879f667a1c675792b77aae9a056b257d6b20287bb09dba >> >> * format/FlightSql.proto >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/36009/files#diff-fd4e5266a841a2b4196aadca76a4563b6770c91d400ee53b6235b96da628a01e >> >> >> >> 2. Documentation changes: >> >> docs/source/format/Flight.rst >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/36009/files#diff-839518fb41e923de682e8587f0b6fdb00eb8f3361d360c2f7249284a136a7d89 >> > >> > We can split the part to a separated pull request. But if we >> > split the part and merge the pull requests for format >> > related changes and implementation related changes >> > separately, our CI will be broken temporary. Because our >> > implementations use auto-generated sources that are based on >> > *.proto. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >>
