tobixdev commented on issue #8730: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/issues/8730#issuecomment-3461895391
> Is there value to providing a generic Extensions collection on Field, much like https://docs.rs/http/latest/http/struct.Extensions.html. > > This would avoid potentially over-fitting to the extension type use-case, whilst allowing DataFusion to associate whatever additional metadata it wishes Yes, I think this is also a possible avenue to explore. I think that there are other use cases that I currently cannot think of that would benefit from a generalized approach. My gut feeling is that this could be useful for us. For DataFusion, we could then add `DataFusionType` (or similar) to the extension map and retrieve it when necessary. So I'd be happy with this approach. I think, at the end, it will be a trade-off between whether we want to "nudge" users into respecting extension types by forcing them to explicitly handle an extension type variant of `FieldType` above. If this is not wanted, then the extension map could be the best way forward. @paleolimbot @alamb Any take on this from SedonaDB / InfluxDB? Would a generic extensions collection help for any use case? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
