+1 On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:33 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote: > > > I agree it is time to "promote" ArrowFlightSQL to the same level as other > > standards in Arrow > > > > Now that it is used widely (we use and count on it too at InfluxData) I > > agree it makes sense to remove the experimental label from the overall > > spec. > > > > It would make sense to leave experimental / caveats on any places (like > > extension APIs) that are likely to change > > > > Andrew > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:39 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Yes, I think we can continue marking new features (like the bulk > > > ingest/session proposals) as experimental but remove it from anything > > > currently in the spec. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 11:36, Laurent Goujon wrote: > > > > I'm the author of the initial pull request which triggered the > > > discussion. > > > > I was focusing first on the comment in Maven pom.xml files which show > > up > > > in > > > > Maven Central and other places, and which got some people confused > > about > > > > the state of the driver/code. IMHO this would apply to the current > > > > Flight/Flight SQL protocol and code as it is today. Protocol > extensions > > > > should be still deemed experimental if still in their incubating > phase? > > > > > > > > Laurent > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:54 PM Micah Kornfield < > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> This applies to mostly existing APIs (e.g. recent additions are > still > > > >> experimental)? Or would it apply to everything going forward? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Micah > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:25 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Yes, we'd update the docs, the Protobuf definitions, and anything > > else > > > >> > referring to Flight SQL as experimental. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, at 17:14, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > > > >> > > The message types defined in FlightSql.proto are all marked > > > >> experimental > > > >> > as > > > >> > > well. Would this include changes to any of those? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 16:43 Laurent Goujon > > > <laur...@dremio.com.invalid > > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> we have been using it with Dremio for a while now, and we > > consider > > > it > > > >> > >> stable > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> +1 (not binding) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Laurent > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:52 PM Matt Topol > > > >> <m...@voltrondata.com.invalid > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > +1, I agree with everyone else > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 7:49 PM James Duong > > > >> > >> > <james.du...@improving.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > +1 from me. It's used in a good number of databases now. > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > > > >> > >> > > ________________________________ > > > >> > >> > > From: David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > > > >> > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:59:54 AM > > > >> > >> > > To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org> > > > >> > >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Flight SQL as experimental > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Flight SQL has been marked 'experimental' since the > > beginning. > > > >> Given > > > >> > >> that > > > >> > >> > > it's now used by a few systems for a few years now, should > we > > > >> remove > > > >> > >> this > > > >> > >> > > qualifier? I don't expect us to be making breaking changes > > > >> anymore. > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > This came up in a GitHub PR: > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/39040 > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > -David > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
