Hi Sung, Thanks for moving this forward. I agree PR #4409 is the right place to continue the concrete interface-shape discussion.
At a high level, I like the direction of making authorization request shapes more explicit and keeping batch authorization in mind. I will take a look at the PR. Yufei On Wed, 13 May 2026 10:09:42 -0400, Dmitri Bourlatchkov [email protected] wrote: Hi Sung, Thanks for pushing this work forward! I commented on PR 4409 in GH. In general I like the direction this PR is going. Still, I think some more fine-tuning would improve interface clarity (as commented in GH). Thanks, Dmitri. On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 8:46 AM Sung Yun [email protected] wrote: Hi Dmitri, Yufei, Thank you for keeping the discussion going on the other thread [1]. I’m following up here on the proposal to fold this into the new authorization SPI work. Based on feedback from the Polaris Community Authorization Sync on May 7 [2], I put together a PR [3] that changes the shape of the new authorize SPI and AuthorizationRequest so the request model makes the authorization target shape more explicit inside PolarisAuthorizer. At a high level, the PR: - introduces batch authorize APIs that take List - removes PolarisPrincipal from AuthorizationRequest, so caller context is not duplicated across batch requests - reworks AuthorizationRequest into a sealed hierarchy with explicit request shapes: - SingleTargetAuthorizationRequest - PairwiseTargetAuthorizationRequest - TargetlessAuthorizationRequest This is an SPI-breaking proposal, but since the new SPI is not yet used by the main request flow, I believe this is still a safe point to make the change. I’d appreciate feedback on whether this request shape is a better fit for the new SPI, especially given the earlier concern that AuthorizationRequest should make resource shape more explicit. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o5hntqfvfhn5z9t78480nplpypddg200 [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C_SSaZH1i83UUGXrnVBur1fR_FHKYWZ75ISFfcb3kns/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.wodibvbtg7qj [3] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4409 On 2026/04/06 20:23:11 Yufei Gu wrote: Given that, let’s keep them separate. See you guys tomorrow. Yufei On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 11:43 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov [email protected] wrote: Hi All, I may not be available for the entire Community Sprint time slot tomorrow. I’d personally prefer to keep the old Authorization meeting time and video call format. Cheers, Dmitiri. On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 2:05 PM Sung Yun [email protected] wrote: Hi Yufei, That’s a good suggestion - I’m open to merging them. That said, since we already have a dedicated and well-established sync for Authorization, it might be better to use the Community Sprint for other topics and help create structure around those discussions. I’m fine either way. Happy to align with what works best for the group. Sung On 2026/04/06 17:59:32 Yufei Gu wrote: Hi folks, We have a Polaris Community Spring tomorrow afternoon. Can we merge the morning’s Polaris Authorizer Sync Meeting into the Sprint? Yufei On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:30 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < [email protected] wrote: Hi Sung, Thanks for driving this call! I think today’s session was very useful and productive. Just to sync up with everyone: I believe we will continue working on code refactorings (SPI PRs) between those community calls and discuss specific code-level issues via email or GH comments. Cheers, Dmitri. On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 8:23 AM Sung Yun [email protected] wrote: Thanks a lot JB! Confirming that I’m able to see the new recurring sync on my Google calendar. I’m looking forward to syncing up with everyone tomorrow at 1pm ET / 10am PT. Cheers, Sung On 2026/03/23 09:55:47 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: The invite has been sent. Anyone member of the Polaris Google Group will receive it. Here’s the invite details: Polaris Authorizer Sync Meeting 10am PT Video call link: https://meet.google.com/hyj-fcdm-ydx NB: I’m creating a Calendar that will create a PR to share on the website. Regards JB On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < [email protected] wrote: Hi Sung, I propose moving the sync to 10:00 AM PT (starting March 24th) to avoid a conflict with the Iceberg meeting. I am sending the calendar invitation now. Regards, JB On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 12:52 AM Sung Yun [email protected] wrote: Hi JB, that’ll be fantastic. It looks like we have enough members interested in joining the sync. Could I ask for your help in adding a meeting to the Polaris Agenda group [1], for Tuesdays at 12:00 PM ET (9:00 AM PT), starting March 24th? Thanks a lot JB. And here’s the Google Doc [2] I created where we can keep track of the discussion topics for the sync as well. Looking forward to discussing auth with everyone. Sung [1] https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/polaris-community-sync [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C_SSaZH1i83UUGXrnVBur1fR_FHKYWZ75ISFfcb3kns/edit?tab=t.0 On 2026/03/20 14:15:40 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Hi As discussed together, I think it’s a great idea. I’m happy to add a meeting (recorded) on the Polaris agenda (Google Group). On a related topic, I will create a PR to add a Calendar with all our meetings on our website. Regards JB On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 7:30 PM Sung Yun < [email protected] wrote: Hi folks, Following the discussion in the Polaris community sync, it seems like we could benefit from a dedicated forum to work through the PolarisAuthorizer SPI and related questions. Some topics we can start with include: - Decoupling Polaris resolution and privilege from Polaris authorization - Mixed-mode authorization (continuing to use native principals and grants after decoupling) - Contract with external authorizers for Polaris (e.g., PolarisAuthorizableOperation, PolarisEntityType) - Incorporating additional authorization context I’d like to propose a fortnightly authorization sync to drive these topics forward. I’m thinking Tuesdays at 12:00 PM ET (9:00 AM PT), starting March 25 (the second sequence will be April 7th, and on). I’m happy to send out a calendar invite if there is general support in the community on the idea. Cheers, Sung
