Hi Alkis, I'm generally in favor of this, my main concern/question is trying to encourage work to be in the open. I don't think in the long run it is good for users to always have proprietary extensions inside of Parquet.
IMO, I think the next steps would be to add implementations to write out the footer extension points. Thanks, Micah On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:24 PM Alkis Evlogimenos <alkis.evlogime...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: > The snafus are fixed. The original should work now. > > On Sun, 23 Jun 2024, 17:58 Alkis Evlogimenos, < > alkis.evlogime...@databricks.com> wrote: > > > Due to some sharing snafus with automation, please request access to > > comment. If you are just reading I've published this here: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vThXkhHNozn_p1ZZWF-nCzOtoP1lKmkaV4Legq2FaRiIgwyY2XC9AmKpBtpeF8jbBB4wfjmQ6UTg03k/pub > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:29 AM Alkis Evlogimenos < > > alkis.evlogime...@databricks.com> wrote: > > > >> Hey folks. > >> > >> I want to move the extension PR > >> <https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/254> forward. > >> Unfortunately the discussion was spread across the PR, other threads and > >> documents making it slow to progress. To avoid further fragmentation I > have > >> put together a document > >> < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KkoR0DjzYnLQXO-d0oRBv2k157IZU0_injqd4eV4WiI/edit > > > >> discussing the extensions mechanism in isolation. I believe the document > >> addresses all the concerns/comments from the PR and mailing list > >> discussions brought forward so far. > >> > >> I propose we continue the discussion in the document and once everything > >> is addressed, we finalize the PR. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > > >
