Sounds reasonable for me. I will then to continue to implement the missing 
interfaces for Parquet in pyarrow.parquet. 

@wesm Can you take care that we easily depend on a pinned version of 
parquet-cpp in pyarrow’s travis builds?


> Am 21.09.2016 um 20:07 schrieb Wes McKinney <>:
> I don't agree with this approach right now. Here are my reasons:
> 1. The Parquet Python integration will need to depend both on PyArrow
> and the Arrow C++ libraries, so these libraries would generally need
> to be developed together
> 2. PyArrow would need to define and maintain a C++ or Cython API so
> that the equivalent of the current pyarrow.parquet library can access
> C-level data. For example:
> Cython does permit cross-project C API access (we are already doing
> cross-module Cython APi access within pyarrow). This adds additional
> complexity that I think we should avoid for now.
> 3. Maintaining a separate C++ build toolchain for a Python package
> adds additional maintenance and packaging burden on us
> My inclination is to keep the code where it is and make the Parquet
> extension optional.
> - Wes
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Uwe Korn <> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> as we have moved the Arrow<->Parquet C++ integration into parquet-cpp, we
>> still have to decide on how we are going to proceed with the Arrow<->Parquet
>> Python integration. For the moment, it seems that the best way to go ahead
>> is to pull the pyarrow.parquet module out into a separate Python package.
>> From an organisational point, I'm unclear how I should proceed here. Should
>> we put this in a separate repo? If so, as part of the Apache organisation?
>> Uwe

Reply via email to