Hey everyone, I watched the catalog sync recording today and updated the PR <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9940> to remove fine-grained capabilities like *register-table / table-metrics*.
The current capabilities (with versioning information) in the PR are: - tables - views - remote-signing - vended-credentials - multi-table-commit For servers that only *partially* implement endpoints under a capability the spec requires the server to throw a *501 Not Implemented*. I've also added the 501 error to the response of the respective endpoints but worth mentioning that *HEAD* / *GET *requests must not return a 501 <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/501> (this implies that the server impl would e.g. return a *404* in such a case). Regards Eduard On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 3:59 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Eduard, > > It makes sense to return 501 for servers which don't implement all > endpoints. It means that the server will at least have to implement > empty endpoints if needed (that makes sense to me). > > I think we should focus on only "identified capabilities". I think > that I proposed before that the capabilities can be > overridden/provided by server implementation. Else, I'm afraid we > won't be flexible enough or always behind the implementation (if an > implementation wants to add "my-foo-cap"). > > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 9:32 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner > <etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I have clarified the wording in #9940 around the requirement on having > to implement all endpoints under a particular capability. > > > > For servers that only partially implement endpoints under a capability > the spec requires the server to throw a 501 Not Implemented. This was > suggested by Jack and it seems reasonable to do that. > > > > Regarding the inclusion of table-spec / view-spec as a capability: I > think this might make sense for the next iteration of the REST spec but as > I mentioned earlier I don't see any clear benefit for the current REST spec > as the client wouldn't do anything with that information. > > If there is a clear benefit of having this, then this can still be added > later to the current REST spec but I believe we should rather have a few > well-defined and actionable capabilities rather than too many. > > > > Eduard > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 5:44 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Spec is an interesting topic we did not discuss. Robert, how do you > envision this to be used? > >>> In my mind, if a new table format v3 is launched, there are 2 > approaches we can go with, taking CreateTable as an example: > >>> (1) increment the related operation version, which means that POST > /v2/{prefix}/namespaces/{ns}/tables will be created and allow creating > tables in the v3 version. > >>> (2) update the existing table metadata model to support both v2 and v3 > fields, and the server enforces the payload differently based on the > TableMetadata.format-version field. If the server does not support v3, it > can return unsupported at that time. > >>> Either way we go, the table-spec version does not need to be a > capability. (1) seems to be cleaner, but has some overhead in provisioning > a new endpoint compared to (2). > >>> Do you see another way to do this leveraging the table-spec version? > >> > >> > >> 2 is cleaner but maybe inconsistent with current behavior, since > /v1/tables operation supports both v1 and v3. We should only go to 2 only > when we have incompatible fields/break changes according to discussion. > >> > >> Generally I agree with adding table-spec into capabilities. For > example, we can expose this to user in api so that user could choose a > supported table format version without throwing exception. > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 12:18 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Spec is an interesting topic we did not discuss. Robert, how do you > envision this to be used? > >>> > >>> In my mind, if a new table format v3 is launched, there are 2 > approaches we can go with, taking CreateTable as an example: > >>> > >>> (1) increment the related operation version, which means that POST > /v2/{prefix}/namespaces/{ns}/tables will be created and allow creating > tables in the v3 version. > >>> > >>> (2) update the existing table metadata model to support both v2 and v3 > fields, and the server enforces the payload differently based on the > TableMetadata.format-version field. If the server does not support v3, it > can return unsupported at that time. > >>> > >>> Either way we go, the table-spec version does not need to be a > capability. (1) seems to be cleaner, but has some overhead in provisioning > a new endpoint compared to (2). > >>> > >>> Do you see another way to do this leveraging the table-spec version? > >>> > >>> -Jack > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 6:03 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner > <eduard.tudenhoef...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I couldn't make it to the catalog sync meeting yesterday but I > watched the recording today (thanks for providing that). > >>>> > >>>>> The missing piece is how (new, capabilities-aware) clients handle > the case when a service does _not_ return the capabilities field (absent). > My proposal would be that a client should in this case assume that all > _currently_ existing capabilities are supported. > >>>>> > >>>>> - tables: [1] > >>>>> - views: [1] > >>>>> - remote-signing: [1] > >>>>> - multi-table-commit: [1] > >>>>> - register-table: [1] > >>>>> - table-metrics: [1] > >>>>> - table-spec: [1,2] > >>>>> - view-spec: [1,2] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> The one thing I would like to add here is that the current PR uses > the tables capability (as version 1) as the default when a server doesn't > return capabilities but it might be also ok to include views (as version 1) > because the current client impl has some code to deal with errors in case > endpoints don't exist. > >>>> > >>>> Unless we agree that the currently existing functionality in the REST > spec is the default behavior to be assumed for older server, I'm not sure > about including remote-signing / multi-table-commit / register-table / > table-metrics as it has been indicated in earlier comments on the PR/ML > that not every REST server supports these. > >>>> > >>>> That being said, we should discuss whether we want the default > behavior (when an older server doesn't send back capabilities) to be > >>>> a) tables (version 1) only > >>>> b) the currently existing functionality as defined in the REST spec > (as version 1) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On another note: Including table-spec / view-spec seems to be more > informative in its nature as I don't think a client would act differently > right now when seeing these. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> Eduard > >>>> >
