I re-opened [801] and labelled it as 1.0 blocker. My rationale is that it is a degraded UX and in previous discussions on this issue the consensus was that "it should not happen".
[801] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/801 Cheers, Dmitri. On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 5:22 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've just added [1775] to the list of 1.0 blockers. My rationale: > > * As discussed in [1758], current configuration lookup methods have a > certain API skew. > > Some methods have PolarisCallContext parameters, others > RealmContext. PolarisCallContext implies a certain realm ID (e.g. it > includes a BasePersistence, whose JDBC implementation is specific to a > realm - it has a realm ID field), but it does not expose the realm ID for > access to outside caller. As a result, this API makes it obscure how the > realm ID is obtained for looking up configuration values. Is it the > implicit realm ID in PolarisCallContext? Is it the realm ID from the > Request Scope? > > * Given that some PRs and comments already bring up API backwards > compatibility concerns (e.g. [1724]), I believe it is critical to sort out > CDI context issues and configuration lookup APIs before 1.0 as it is a > central piece of Polaris backend and affects many code areas. > > That said, I'm willing to participate in addressing [1175] ASAP. > > [1724] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1724 > [1758] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1758 > [1775] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1775 > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 5:39 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> Many users have been asking about the Polaris release, and I believe it's >> critical to have a formal, production-ready 1.0 release ASAP. Thanks to >> the >> community’s hard work, we’re very close with a few remaining blockers we >> need to resolve. >> >> To keep things moving, I scheduled a community meeting for the 1.0 release >> next Monday at 9 AM PST. At the same time, sharing all issues marked with >> 1.0 blocker. We could resolve them here if possible. Feel free to chime >> in, >> remove the blocker tag if you think it's not a blocker, or pick any up. >> Thanks a lot in advance! >> >> Here is the list: >> >> - Add CI for Python code ( >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1058>#1058), >> - Polaris persistence concurrency issues (#777) >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/777> >> - Task handling is incomplete (#774) >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/774> >> - Generated files in regtests/client/python/polaris (#755) >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/755> >> - Resources not properly closed, resource & memory leaks (#563) >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/563> >> - Make Polaris safe against certain unparseable locations (#552) >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/552> >> - [BUG] Assumption that cache eviction does not happen (#544) >> <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/544> >> >> To make it more interactive, you can also comment on the google >> spreadsheet here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GyLvp2cdYwioOsBwszNWiphZt_IIdo4LIfsZBFV88mc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Yufei >> >
