[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5501?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16855181#comment-16855181 ]
Wes McKinney edited comment on ARROW-5501 at 6/4/19 12:50 AM: -------------------------------------------------------------- Can you open a JIRA issue about FeatherV2 (or maybe this is the issue)? I would like to retain the file format name as a "simple memory-mappable Arrow-based file format" and handle backwards compatibility for old files for some period of time was (Author: wesmckinn): Can you open a JIRA issue about FeatherV2? I would like to retain the file format name as a "simple memory-mappable Arrow-based file format" and handle backwards compatibility for old files for some period of time > [R] read/write_feather/arrow? > ----------------------------- > > Key: ARROW-5501 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-5501 > Project: Apache Arrow > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: R > Reporter: Neal Richardson > Priority: Major > Fix For: 0.14.0 > > > read_feather and write_feather exist, and there is also write_arrow. But no > read_arrow. > Some questions (which go beyond just R): There's talk of a "feather 2.0", > i.e. "just" serializing the IPC format (which IIUC is what write_arrow does). > Are we going to continue to call the file format "Feather", and possibly > continue supporting the "feather 1.0" format as a subset/special case? Or > will "feather" mean this limited format and "arrow" be the name of the > full-featured file? > In terms of this issue, should write_arrow be folded into write_feather and > there be an argument for indicating which version to write? Or should the > distinction be maintained, and we need to add a read_arrow() function? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)