[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-4651?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16774323#comment-16774323
]
Jacques Nadeau commented on ARROW-4651:
---------------------------------------
Inflexible and opinionated can be good when defining a format. Flexibility
means that implementations don't work with each other. (There are several
places where we already have that problem across our bindings :(.)
I'm all for adding flexibility for real things we want to support assuming as
part of that we're including support for those items in at least the C++ and
Java libraries.
* If you're arguing to change the protocol to a string field and define a
formal URI scheme that only supports host + port right now, I'd be in support
of that.
* If you want to extend that to add support for unix domain sockets and the
supporting impls, that sounds good as well.
> [Format] Flight Location should be more flexible than a (host, port) pair
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARROW-4651
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-4651
> Project: Apache Arrow
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: FlightRPC, Format
> Affects Versions: 0.12.0
> Reporter: Antoine Pitrou
> Priority: Major
>
> The more future-proof solution is probably to define a URI format. gRPC
> already has something like that, though we might want to define our own
> format:
> https://grpc.io/grpc/cpp/md_doc_naming.html
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
