nevi-me commented on pull request #261: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/261#issuecomment-834098232
> If this is too much of a complexity, let's then merge this as is :) I just think that we are making it harder for us long run, and exposing public stuff is usually a one-way street, so I was trying to reduce how much we go down that road. Yea, I understand this, and agree with you. May we please keep this on hold for now, I'll think of a solution based on our discussion and your suggestions. If we weren't constrained by not being able to implement traits for external types without a newtype approach, I would have preferred that we replace the Parquet equivalent structs with what's in the Parquet format crate. Defining our own structs has previously made it a bit difficult for a less experienced impelementer like me, to see what new functionality is enabled in a new parquet version. I prefer the "this broke because of a new field" kind of thing. A good example is `TIMESTAMP_NANO`, it took me very loooong to figure out that we needed to switch to `LogicalType` because had a mismatch in names :) -- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
