Thanks, Christian and Ally, for working on the implementation. I understand that the implementation is important, but do we need to block the REST spec on it? Typically, we merge the spec PR first and then work on the implementation.
Yufei On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 11:55 PM Christian Thiel <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks @ally for your work on this. > Yes, we are currently waiting for Reviews. I am not a Java Maintainer, but > maybe Eduard could have another look? > @Yufei please have a look at the Java PR as well. Once this is merged, we > can proceed with the REST PR. > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 09:02, ally heev <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think we are waiting on core classes implementation >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/13580>. I have a PR >> <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14142> for the Request/Response >> Objects waiting for review >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 5:02 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, do we have updates on this? Are we still pursuing it? I saw >>> the PR https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12584/files is in draft >>> state. Could we make it ready to review? >>> >>> Yufei >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:34 AM Christian Thiel < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you all for the great discussion today! >>>> I have updated the proposal. Key changes are: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Specify that clients should ignore unknown operation & event types >>>> - >>>> >>>> Specify the `actor` field as part of the `Event` schema as an >>>> opaque string. Remove the `Actor` type. >>>> - Remove the `actors` filter from the `GetEventsRequest`, add an >>>> extendable `custom-filters` object instead (`additionalProperties: >>>> true`) >>>> >>>> The diff for the changes since the sync today is available in Github: >>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12584/commits/3de9a7c5d128b1100c38ce688603c94491008d35 >>>> The google doc is also updated, >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WtIsNGVX75-_MsQIOJhXLAWg6IbplV4-DkLllQEiFT8/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Looking forward to more feedback, especially regarding custom >>>> operations! >>>> >>>> On Tue, 27 May 2025 at 10:15, Christian Thiel < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I think we have reached mostly consensus here. >>>>> There is one more change since our last discussion: We removed the >>>>> recursive "assumed-by" field of actors in favor or an "actor-chain" list. >>>>> >>>>> If there is any more need for discussion please voice it here on the >>>>> Mailing List or in the Catalog sync tomorrow. I would otherwise start a >>>>> vote. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 7 May 2025 at 11:18, Christian Thiel < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I worked the changes discussed in the last catalog sync into the >>>>>> Events proposal [1]. >>>>>> Those include: >>>>>> - Using request-id instead of transaction >>>>>> - A more flexible User (now called Actor) >>>>>> - Custom Operation type >>>>>> >>>>>> The specific diff compared to the last discussion can be best seen in >>>>>> my latest commit in git [2]. >>>>>> It would be good to still comment in Google Docs so that we have >>>>>> everything in one place. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]: >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WtIsNGVX75-_MsQIOJhXLAWg6IbplV4-DkLllQEiFT8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> [2]: >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12584/commits/4d67051e03d5345687566b3900db3af23ce15766 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 14:53, Christian Thiel < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> after the last Catalog sync I updated the proposal. >>>>>>> Changes are in the original proposal Document [1] and the original >>>>>>> PR [2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WtIsNGVX75-_MsQIOJhXLAWg6IbplV4-DkLllQEiFT8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12584 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 at 10:49, Christian Thiel < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have recently discussed in the Iceberg Catalog Community Sync >>>>>>>> [1] and the Mailing List [2] different ways on how federation between >>>>>>>> Catalogs could be standardized. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This proposal introduces a /events endpoint to the IRC >>>>>>>> specification. The endpoint provides events of modifications to objects >>>>>>>> managed by the Catalog (tables, namespaces, views), allowing consumers >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> efficiently track metadata changes using persistent offsets for >>>>>>>> reliable >>>>>>>> consumption and resumability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposal Document: >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WtIsNGVX75-_MsQIOJhXLAWg6IbplV4-DkLllQEiFT8/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am looking forward to your thoughts and hope we find time in next >>>>>>>> week's Catalog sync to discuss this further. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] Catalog Community Sync Feb. 2025 >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcehreE8Nk >>>>>>>> [2] Mailing List, September 2024 - Notifications Endpoint: >>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/zcv6qm9ysknrhfpg093qgnrkrolptcht >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
