[
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)
