+1 On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 3:22 PM Andrew Lamb <al...@influxdata.com> wrote:
> +1 > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:06 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I would like to propose a 'reuse connection' URI scheme for Flight RPC. > > This proposal was previously discussed at [1]. A candidate implementation > > for C++, Java, and Go is at [2]. > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > [ ] +1 > > [ ] +0 > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/pc9fs0hf8t5ylj9os00r9vg8d2xv2npz > > [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/40084 > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, at 14:14, David Li wrote: > > > Thanks for the comments - I've updated the implementation [1] and added > > > Go + integration tests. If this all checks out I'd like to start a vote > > > soon. > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/40084 > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024, at 13:43, Andrew Lamb wrote: > > >> Thank you -- I think the usecase is great, but agree with the other > > >> reviewers that the name may be confusing. I left some notes on the > > ticket > > >> > > >> Andrew > > >> > > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 3:52 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I've put up a candidate implementation sans integration test [1]. > > >>> > > >>> Some caveats: > > >>> - java.net.URI doesn't accept 'scheme://', only 'scheme:/' or > > 'scheme://?' > > >>> (yes, an empty query string pacifies it). I've chosen the latter > since > > the > > >>> former is technically a URI with a non-empty path but neither are > > ideal. > > >>> - I've changed the scheme to 'arrow-flight-reuse-connection' to be > more > > >>> faithful to the intended use than 'fallback'. > > >>> > > >>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/40084 > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, at 13:01, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > >>> > Hi David, > > >>> > > > >>> > It's reasonable. I think we can start with your initial proposal > (it > > >>> > sounds fine to me) and we can always improve step by step. > > >>> > > > >>> > Thanks ! > > >>> > Regards > > >>> > JB > > >>> > > > >>> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:53 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I'm going to keep the proposal as-is then. It can be extended if > > this > > >>> use case comes up. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I'll start work on candidate implementations now. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, at 03:22, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > >>> >> > I think the original proposal is sufficient. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Also, it is not obvious to me how one would switch from e.g. > > grpc+tls > > >>> to > > >>> >> > http without an explicit server location (unless both Flight > > servers > > >>> are > > >>> >> > hosted under the same port?). So the "+" proposal seems a bit > > weird. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Le 12/02/2024 à 23:39, David Li a écrit : > > >>> >> >> The idea is that the client would reuse the existing > connection, > > in > > >>> which case the protocol and such are implicit. (If the client doesn't > > have > > >>> a connection anymore, it can't use the fallback anyways.) > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> I suppose this has the advantage that you could "fall back" to > a > > >>> known hostname with a different protocol, but I'm not sure that > always > > >>> applies anyways. (Correct me if I'm wrong Matt, but as I recall, UCX > > >>> addresses aren't hostnames but rather opaque byte blobs, for > instance.) > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> If we do prefer this, to avoid overloading the hostname, > there's > > >>> also the informal convention of using + in the scheme, so it could be > > >>> arrow-flight-fallback+grpc+tls://, arrow-flight-fallback+http://, > etc. > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024, at 17:03, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > > >>> >> >>> Thanks for clarifying. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> Given the relationship between these two proposals, would it > > also be > > >>> >> >>> necessary to distinguish the scheme (or schemes) supported by > > the > > >>> >> >>> originating Flight RPC service? > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> If that is the case, it may be preferred to use the "host" > > portion > > >>> of the > > >>> >> >>> URI rather than the "scheme" to denote the location of the > > data. In > > >>> this > > >>> >> >>> scenario, the host "0.0.0.0" could be used. This IP address is > > >>> defined in > > >>> >> >>> IETF RFC1122 [1] as "This host on this network", which seems > > most > > >>> >> >>> consistent with the intended use-case. There are some caveats > to > > >>> this usage > > >>> >> >>> but in my experience it's not uncommon for protocols to extend > > the > > >>> >> >>> definition of this address in their own usage. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> A benefit of this convention is that the scheme remains > > available > > >>> in the > > >>> >> >>> URI to specify the transport available. For example, the > > following > > >>> list of > > >>> >> >>> locations may be included in the response: > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> ["grpc://0.0.0.0", "ucx://0.0.0.0", "grpc://1.2.3.4", > > >>> <other_locations>...] > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> This would indicate that grpc and ucx transport is available > > from > > >>> the > > >>> >> >>> current service, grpc is available at 1.2.3.4, and possibly > more > > >>> >> >>> combinations of scheme/host. > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> [1] > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1122#section-3.2.1.3 > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:53 PM David Li <lidav...@apache.org > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >>>> Ah, while I was thinking of it as useful for a fallback, I'm > > not > > >>> >> >>>> specifying it that way. Better ideas for names would be > > >>> appreciated. > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> >> >>>> The actual precedence has never been specified. All endpoints > > are > > >>> >> >>>> equivalent, so clients may use what is "best". For instance, > > with > > >>> Matt > > >>> >> >>>> Topol's concurrent proposal, a GPU-enabled client may > > >>> preferentially try > > >>> >> >>>> UCX endpoints while other clients may choose to ignore them > > >>> entirely (e.g. > > >>> >> >>>> because they don't have UCX installed). > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> >> >>>> In practice the ADBC/JDBC drivers just scan the list left to > > right > > >>> and try > > >>> >> >>>> each endpoint in turn for lack of a better heuristic. > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> >> >>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024, at 14:28, Joel Lubinitsky wrote: > > >>> >> >>>>> Thanks for proposing this David. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> I think the ability to include the Flight RPC service itself > > in > > >>> the list > > >>> >> >>>> of > > >>> >> >>>>> endpoints from which data can be fetched is a helpful > > addition. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> The current choice of name for the URI > > (arrow-flight-fallback://) > > >>> seems > > >>> >> >>>> to > > >>> >> >>>>> imply that there is an order of precedence that should be > > >>> considered in > > >>> >> >>>> the > > >>> >> >>>>> list of URI’s. Specifically, as a developer receiving the > > list of > > >>> >> >>>> locations > > >>> >> >>>>> I might assume that I should try fetching from other > locations > > >>> first. If > > >>> >> >>>>> those do not succeed, I may try the original service as a > > >>> fallback. > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> Are these the intended semantics? If so, is there a way to > > >>> include the > > >>> >> >>>>> original service in the list of locations without the > implied > > >>> precedence? > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> Thanks, > > >>> >> >>>>> Joel > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:52 James Duong < > > >>> james.du...@improving.com > > >>> >> >>>> .invalid> > > >>> >> >>>>> wrote: > > >>> >> >>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> This seems like a good idea, and also improves consistency > > with > > >>> clients > > >>> >> >>>>>> that erroneously assumed that the service endpoint was > > always in > > >>> the > > >>> >> >>>> list > > >>> >> >>>>>> of endpoints. > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> From: Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Date: Monday, February 12, 2024 at 6:05 AM > > >>> >> >>>>>> To: dev@arrow.apache.org <dev@arrow.apache.org> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Flight RPC: add 'fallback' URI > scheme > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Hello, > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> This looks fine to me. > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Regards > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Antoine. > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> Le 12/02/2024 à 14:46, David Li a écrit : > > >>> >> >>>>>>> Hello, > > >>> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I'd like to propose a slight update to Flight RPC to make > > >>> Flight SQL > > >>> >> >>>>>> work better in different deployment scenarios. Comments on > > the > > >>> doc > > >>> >> >>>> would > > >>> >> >>>>>> be appreciated: > > >>> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g9M9FmsZhkewlT1mLibuceQO8ugI0-fqumVAXKFjVGg/edit?usp=sharing > > >>> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>>> The gist is that FlightEndpoint allows specifying either > > (1) a > > >>> list of > > >>> >> >>>>>> concrete URIs to fetch data from or (2) no URIs, meaning to > > >>> fetch from > > >>> >> >>>> the > > >>> >> >>>>>> Flight RPC service itself; but it would be useful to > combine > > both > > >>> >> >>>> behaviors > > >>> >> >>>>>> (try these concrete URIs and fall back to the Flight RPC > > service > > >>> itself) > > >>> >> >>>>>> without requiring the service to know its own public > address. > > >>> >> >>>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>>>>> Best, > > >>> >> >>>>>>> David > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > >>> >> >>>> > > >>> > > >
