RE: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
I've filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-12435 to track this improvement. From: Matt Rudary Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 4:49 PM To: dev@beam.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem Thanks for the comments all. I forgot to subscribe to dev before I sent out the email, so this response isn't threaded properly. My proposed design is to do the following (for both aws and aws2 packages): 1. Add a public class, S3FileSystemConfiguration, that mostly maps to the S3Options, plus a Scheme field. 2. Add a public interface, S3FileSystemSchemeRegistrar, designed for use with AutoService. It will have a method that takes a PipelineOptions and returns an Iterable of S3FileSystemConfiguration. This will be the way that users register their S3 uri schemes with the system. 3. Add an implementation of S3FileSystemSchemeRegistrar for the s3 scheme that uses the S3Options from PipelineOptions to populate its S3FileSystemConfiguration, maintaining the current behavior by default. 4. Modify S3FileSystem's constructor to take an S3FileSystemConfiguration object instead of an S3Options, and make the relevant changes. 5. Modify S3FileSystemRegistrar to load all the AutoService'd file system configurations, raising an exception if multiple scheme registrars attempt to register the same scheme. I considered alternative methods of configuration, in particular by using some configuration file as in HadoopFileSystemOptions. In the end, I decided that the AutoService approach was better. First, it seems to me more common to do things this way within Beam. Second, unlike with Hadoop, there's no commonly used configuration for these types of file systems already in use, and it's not clear the best way to deal with this (YAML? JSON? Java Properties? XML?). Finally, I think the story for composing multiple registrars is better than the story for composing multiple configuration files; for example, this use case may make sense in case you are dealing with multiple storage vendors. Matt On 2021/05/19 13:27:16, Matt Rudary mailto:m...@twosigma.com>> wrote: > Hi,> > > This is a quick sketch of a proposal - I wanted to get a sense of whether > there's general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, getting > internal approvals, etc.> > > I'm working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would like > to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but S3FileSystem > hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI schemes) and > it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in the current > design.> > > I'd like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and maybe > ...aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven't worked out the > details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a non-hacky > way.> > > Thanks> > Matt Rudary> >
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
Thanks for the comments all. I forgot to subscribe to dev before I sent out the email, so this response isn't threaded properly. My proposed design is to do the following (for both aws and aws2 packages): 1. Add a public class, S3FileSystemConfiguration, that mostly maps to the S3Options, plus a Scheme field. 2. Add a public interface, S3FileSystemSchemeRegistrar, designed for use with AutoService. It will have a method that takes a PipelineOptions and returns an Iterable of S3FileSystemConfiguration. This will be the way that users register their S3 uri schemes with the system. 3. Add an implementation of S3FileSystemSchemeRegistrar for the s3 scheme that uses the S3Options from PipelineOptions to populate its S3FileSystemConfiguration, maintaining the current behavior by default. 4. Modify S3FileSystem's constructor to take an S3FileSystemConfiguration object instead of an S3Options, and make the relevant changes. 5. Modify S3FileSystemRegistrar to load all the AutoService'd file system configurations, raising an exception if multiple scheme registrars attempt to register the same scheme. I considered alternative methods of configuration, in particular by using some configuration file as in HadoopFileSystemOptions. In the end, I decided that the AutoService approach was better. First, it seems to me more common to do things this way within Beam. Second, unlike with Hadoop, there's no commonly used configuration for these types of file systems already in use, and it's not clear the best way to deal with this (YAML? JSON? Java Properties? XML?). Finally, I think the story for composing multiple registrars is better than the story for composing multiple configuration files; for example, this use case may make sense in case you are dealing with multiple storage vendors. Matt On 2021/05/19 13:27:16, Matt Rudary mailto:m...@twosigma.com>> wrote: > Hi,> > > This is a quick sketch of a proposal - I wanted to get a sense of whether > there's general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, getting > internal approvals, etc.> > > I'm working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would like > to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but S3FileSystem > hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI schemes) and > it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in the current > design.> > > I'd like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and maybe > ...aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven't worked out the > details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a non-hacky > way.> > > Thanks> > Matt Rudary> >
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
Please follow URL intention if at all possible. Specifically the bits before the : should indicate how to parse the rest of the URL, not other information. Is this convention of sticking the host before the : already an established thing for s3-compatible endpoints? If the various S3-compatible providers have their own schemes, is it possible to just register the same code with different config for those schemes and not invent any new URLs? That would be ideal. Kenn On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:30 PM Charles Chen wrote: > Is it feasible to keep the endpoint information in the path? It seems > pretty desirable to keep URIs "universal" so that it's possible to > understand what is being pointed to without explicit service configuration, > so maybe you can have a scheme like "s3+endpoint=api.example.com > ://my/bucket/path"? > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:31 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > >> $.02 >> >> Most important is community to maintain it. It cannot be a separate >> project or subproject (lots of ASF projects have this, so they share >> governance) without that. >> >> To add additional friction of separate release and dependency in build >> before you have community, it should be extremely stable so you upgrade >> rarely. See the process of upgrading our vendored deps. It is considerable. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:07 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:12 AM Chad Dombrova >>> wrote: >>> Hi Brian, I think the main goal would be to make a python package that could be pip installed independently of apache_beam. That goal could be accomplished with option 3, thus preserving all of the benefits of a monorepo. If it gains enough popularity and contributors outside of the Beam community, then options 1 and 2 could be considered to make it easier to foster a new community of contributors. >>> >>> This sounds like a lovely goal! >>> >>> I'll just mention the "fsspec" Python project, which came out of Dask: >>> https://filesystem-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ >>> >>> As far as I can tell, it serves basically this exact same purpose >>> (generic filesystems with high-performance IO), and has started to get some >>> traction in other projects, e.g., it's now used in pandas. I don't know if >>> it would be suitable for Beam, but it might be worth a try. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Stephan >>> >>> Beam has a lot of great tech in it, and it makes me think of Celery, which is a much older python project of a similar ilk that spawned a series of useful independent projects: kombu [1], an AMQP messaging library, and billiard [2], a multiprocessing library. Obviously, there are a number of pros and cons to consider. The cons are pretty clear: even within a monorepo it will make the Beam build more complicated. The pros are a bit more abstract. The fileIO project could appeal to a broader audience, and act as a signpost for Beam (on PyPI, etc), thereby increasing awareness of Beam amongst the types of cloud-friendly python developers who would need the fileIO package. -chad [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu [2] https://github.com/celery/billiard On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:57 AM Brian Hulette wrote: > That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A > couple of possibilities: > - Spinning off a new ASF project > - A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems) > - More clearly separate it in the current build system and release > artifacts that allow it to be used independently > > Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer > and I like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the > last one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain. > > Brian > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova > wrote: > >> This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would >> actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not >> particularly tied to Beam. >> >> I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it >> mind for a future goal. >> >> -chad >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada >> wrote: >> >>> That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make >>> this backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be >>> very >>> welcome. >>> >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary < >>> matt.rud...@twosigma.com> wrote: >>> Hi, This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, getting internal approvals, etc.
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
Is it feasible to keep the endpoint information in the path? It seems pretty desirable to keep URIs "universal" so that it's possible to understand what is being pointed to without explicit service configuration, so maybe you can have a scheme like "s3+endpoint=api.example.com ://my/bucket/path"? On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:31 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote: > $.02 > > Most important is community to maintain it. It cannot be a separate > project or subproject (lots of ASF projects have this, so they share > governance) without that. > > To add additional friction of separate release and dependency in build > before you have community, it should be extremely stable so you upgrade > rarely. See the process of upgrading our vendored deps. It is considerable. > > Kenn > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:07 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: > >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:12 AM Chad Dombrova wrote: >> >>> Hi Brian, >>> I think the main goal would be to make a python package that could be >>> pip installed independently of apache_beam. That goal could be >>> accomplished with option 3, thus preserving all of the benefits of a >>> monorepo. If it gains enough popularity and contributors outside of the >>> Beam community, then options 1 and 2 could be considered to make it easier >>> to foster a new community of contributors. >>> >> >> This sounds like a lovely goal! >> >> I'll just mention the "fsspec" Python project, which came out of Dask: >> https://filesystem-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ >> >> As far as I can tell, it serves basically this exact same purpose >> (generic filesystems with high-performance IO), and has started to get some >> traction in other projects, e.g., it's now used in pandas. I don't know if >> it would be suitable for Beam, but it might be worth a try. >> >> Cheers, >> Stephan >> >> >>> Beam has a lot of great tech in it, and it makes me think of Celery, >>> which is a much older python project of a similar ilk that spawned a series >>> of useful independent projects: kombu [1], an AMQP messaging library, and >>> billiard [2], a multiprocessing library. >>> >>> Obviously, there are a number of pros and cons to consider. The cons >>> are pretty clear: even within a monorepo it will make the Beam build more >>> complicated. The pros are a bit more abstract. The fileIO project could >>> appeal to a broader audience, and act as a signpost for Beam (on PyPI, >>> etc), thereby increasing awareness of Beam amongst the types of >>> cloud-friendly python developers who would need the fileIO package. >>> >>> -chad >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu >>> [2] https://github.com/celery/billiard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:57 AM Brian Hulette >>> wrote: >>> That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A couple of possibilities: - Spinning off a new ASF project - A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems) - More clearly separate it in the current build system and release artifacts that allow it to be used independently Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer and I like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the last one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain. Brian On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova wrote: > This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would > actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not > particularly tied to Beam. > > I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it > mind for a future goal. > > -chad > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada > wrote: > >> That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make >> this backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be >> very >> welcome. >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of >>> whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out >>> further, getting internal approvals, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I >>> would like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but >>> S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different >>> URI >>> schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one >>> in >>> the current design. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and >>> maybe …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked >>> out >>> the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a >>> non-hacky way. >>> >>> >>> >>>
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
$.02 Most important is community to maintain it. It cannot be a separate project or subproject (lots of ASF projects have this, so they share governance) without that. To add additional friction of separate release and dependency in build before you have community, it should be extremely stable so you upgrade rarely. See the process of upgrading our vendored deps. It is considerable. Kenn On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:07 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:12 AM Chad Dombrova wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> I think the main goal would be to make a python package that could be pip >> installed independently of apache_beam. That goal could be accomplished >> with option 3, thus preserving all of the benefits of a monorepo. If it >> gains enough popularity and contributors outside of the Beam community, >> then options 1 and 2 could be considered to make it easier to foster a new >> community of contributors. >> > > This sounds like a lovely goal! > > I'll just mention the "fsspec" Python project, which came out of Dask: > https://filesystem-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > > As far as I can tell, it serves basically this exact same purpose (generic > filesystems with high-performance IO), and has started to get some traction > in other projects, e.g., it's now used in pandas. I don't know if it would > be suitable for Beam, but it might be worth a try. > > Cheers, > Stephan > > >> Beam has a lot of great tech in it, and it makes me think of Celery, >> which is a much older python project of a similar ilk that spawned a series >> of useful independent projects: kombu [1], an AMQP messaging library, and >> billiard [2], a multiprocessing library. >> >> Obviously, there are a number of pros and cons to consider. The cons are >> pretty clear: even within a monorepo it will make the Beam build more >> complicated. The pros are a bit more abstract. The fileIO project could >> appeal to a broader audience, and act as a signpost for Beam (on PyPI, >> etc), thereby increasing awareness of Beam amongst the types of >> cloud-friendly python developers who would need the fileIO package. >> >> -chad >> >> [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu >> [2] https://github.com/celery/billiard >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:57 AM Brian Hulette >> wrote: >> >>> That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A >>> couple of possibilities: >>> - Spinning off a new ASF project >>> - A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems) >>> - More clearly separate it in the current build system and release >>> artifacts that allow it to be used independently >>> >>> Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer and >>> I like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the last >>> one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova wrote: >>> This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not particularly tied to Beam. I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it mind for a future goal. -chad On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make > this backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very > welcome. > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of >> whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out >> further, getting internal approvals, etc. >> >> >> >> I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I >> would like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but >> S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different >> URI >> schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in >> the current design. >> >> >> >> I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and >> maybe …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked >> out >> the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a >> non-hacky way. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Matt Rudary >> >
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 10:12 AM Chad Dombrova wrote: > Hi Brian, > I think the main goal would be to make a python package that could be pip > installed independently of apache_beam. That goal could be accomplished > with option 3, thus preserving all of the benefits of a monorepo. If it > gains enough popularity and contributors outside of the Beam community, > then options 1 and 2 could be considered to make it easier to foster a new > community of contributors. > This sounds like a lovely goal! I'll just mention the "fsspec" Python project, which came out of Dask: https://filesystem-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ As far as I can tell, it serves basically this exact same purpose (generic filesystems with high-performance IO), and has started to get some traction in other projects, e.g., it's now used in pandas. I don't know if it would be suitable for Beam, but it might be worth a try. Cheers, Stephan > Beam has a lot of great tech in it, and it makes me think of Celery, which > is a much older python project of a similar ilk that spawned a series of > useful independent projects: kombu [1], an AMQP messaging library, and > billiard [2], a multiprocessing library. > > Obviously, there are a number of pros and cons to consider. The cons are > pretty clear: even within a monorepo it will make the Beam build more > complicated. The pros are a bit more abstract. The fileIO project could > appeal to a broader audience, and act as a signpost for Beam (on PyPI, > etc), thereby increasing awareness of Beam amongst the types of > cloud-friendly python developers who would need the fileIO package. > > -chad > > [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu > [2] https://github.com/celery/billiard > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:57 AM Brian Hulette wrote: > >> That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A couple >> of possibilities: >> - Spinning off a new ASF project >> - A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems) >> - More clearly separate it in the current build system and release >> artifacts that allow it to be used independently >> >> Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer and >> I like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the last >> one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain. >> >> Brian >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova wrote: >> >>> This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would >>> actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not >>> particularly tied to Beam. >>> >>> I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it mind >>> for a future goal. >>> >>> -chad >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada >>> wrote: >>> That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make this backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very welcome. On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary wrote: > Hi, > > > > This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of > whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out > further, getting internal approvals, etc. > > > > I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I > would like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but > S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different > URI > schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in > the current design. > > > > I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and > maybe …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked out > the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a > non-hacky way. > > > > Thanks > > Matt Rudary >
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
Hi Brian, I think the main goal would be to make a python package that could be pip installed independently of apache_beam. That goal could be accomplished with option 3, thus preserving all of the benefits of a monorepo. If it gains enough popularity and contributors outside of the Beam community, then options 1 and 2 could be considered to make it easier to foster a new community of contributors. Beam has a lot of great tech in it, and it makes me think of Celery, which is a much older python project of a similar ilk that spawned a series of useful independent projects: kombu [1], an AMQP messaging library, and billiard [2], a multiprocessing library. Obviously, there are a number of pros and cons to consider. The cons are pretty clear: even within a monorepo it will make the Beam build more complicated. The pros are a bit more abstract. The fileIO project could appeal to a broader audience, and act as a signpost for Beam (on PyPI, etc), thereby increasing awareness of Beam amongst the types of cloud-friendly python developers who would need the fileIO package. -chad [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu [2] https://github.com/celery/billiard On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:57 AM Brian Hulette wrote: > That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A couple > of possibilities: > - Spinning off a new ASF project > - A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems) > - More clearly separate it in the current build system and release > artifacts that allow it to be used independently > > Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer and I > like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the last > one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain. > > Brian > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova wrote: > >> This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would >> actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not >> particularly tied to Beam. >> >> I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it mind >> for a future goal. >> >> -chad >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada >> wrote: >> >>> That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make this >>> backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very >>> welcome. >>> >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary >>> wrote: >>> Hi, This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, getting internal approvals, etc. I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in the current design. I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and maybe …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked out the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a non-hacky way. Thanks Matt Rudary >>>
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A couple of possibilities: - Spinning off a new ASF project - A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems) - More clearly separate it in the current build system and release artifacts that allow it to be used independently Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer and I like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the last one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain. Brian On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova wrote: > This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would > actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not > particularly tied to Beam. > > I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it mind > for a future goal. > > -chad > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > >> That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make this >> backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very >> welcome. >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of >>> whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out >>> further, getting internal approvals, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would >>> like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but >>> S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI >>> schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in >>> the current design. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and >>> maybe …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked out >>> the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a >>> non-hacky way. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Matt Rudary >>> >>
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would actually be awesome to extract into its own project. IIRC, it’s not particularly tied to Beam. I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it mind for a future goal. -chad On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada wrote: > That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make this > backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very > welcome. > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of whether >> there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, >> getting internal approvals, etc. >> >> >> >> I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would >> like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but >> S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI >> schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in >> the current design. >> >> >> >> I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and maybe >> …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked out the >> details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a non-hacky >> way. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Matt Rudary >> >
Re: Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make this backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very welcome. On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary wrote: > Hi, > > > > This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of whether > there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, > getting internal approvals, etc. > > > > I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would > like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but > S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI > schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in > the current design. > > > > I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and maybe > …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked out the > details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a non-hacky > way. > > > > Thanks > > Matt Rudary >
Proposal: Generalize S3FileSystem
Hi, This is a quick sketch of a proposal - I wanted to get a sense of whether there's general support for this idea before fleshing it out further, getting internal approvals, etc. I'm working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in the current design. I'd like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and maybe ...aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven't worked out the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a non-hacky way. Thanks Matt Rudary
