You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Brent Bovenzi <br...@astronomer.io.INVALID> on 2024/08/01 18:19:55 UTC
[VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Hi,
Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern Web
Application for Airflow 3.0. We would like to open it up for a vote.
AIP-79
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-79%3A+Remove+Flask+AppBuilder+as+Core+dependency
AIP-84 UI REST API
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-84+UI+REST+API
The vote will run for 5 days until next Monday August 5th 19:00 UTC.
Consider this my +1 for both.
- Brent
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by "Bishundeo, Rajeshwar" <rb...@amazon.com.INVALID>.
+1 non-binding
-- Rajesh
On 2024-08-02, 1:51 PM, "Buğra Öztürk" <ozturkbugra93@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
+1 non-binding
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:20 PM Elad Kalif <eladkal@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> I am not sure I agree with previous statements regarding the LDAP issue
> (specifically about blocker or not blocker for Airflow 3) but let's not
> discuss this here as it's out of scope for the AIPs we are voting here.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:15 PM Vincent Beck <vincbeck@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> > Big +1 to this one. I think this is the major blocker on that workstream:
> > deciding which tool we want to leverage to build the default auth manager
> > for Airflow 3. Once that decision taken I'll be happy to help to
> implement
> > the auth manager based upon that tool.
> >
> > On 2024/08/02 16:06:00 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > Yeah. KeyCloak was just a repeating theme in a number of
> questions/issues
> > > some users raised (How do I integrate with KeyCloak) and it's well
> > > recognized in enterprise. But this is about as much as I know about it
> :)
> > >
> > > So yeah, if we have anyone who can dig deeper in the options we have or
> > > ideally someone who has experience in running and configuring /
> > developing
> > > for any of those - we are definitely on a lookout for such person.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 5:34 PM Vikram Koka
> <vikram@astronomer.io.inva <ma...@astronomer.io.inva>lid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agreed Jarek on the parallel workstream for auth and also that should
> > not
> > > > be a blocker for 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if the right answer is actually Keycloak. There was some
> > > > research done by my colleagues within Astronomer using Casbin for the
> > same,
> > > > but I don't know the differences between those and other options. I
> > agree
> > > > that this needs some investigation before we can figure out the exact
> > > > timing. And therefore having the FAB provider as a backup option is
> > > > critical in my mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com <ma...@potiuk.com>>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should
> have a
> > > > > separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for
> > > > example
> > > > > authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new
> > > > provider.
> > > > > Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and
> > roles -
> > > > > it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and
> > eventually
> > > > > teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some
> > flexibility of
> > > > > mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
> > > > >
> > > > > It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB
> > provider as
> > > > > backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good
> > to
> > > > > actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <
> > jedcunningham@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> > > > > > installing
> > > > > > > FAB provider explicitly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth
> > manager, as
> > > > it
> > > > > > won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is
> a
> > > > > primary
> > > > > > goal of this AIP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > > > > > > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB
> > for
> > > > > > > backwards compatibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining
> non-react
> > > > > pages.
> > > > > > Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should
> likely
> > add
> > > > > some
> > > > > > details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run
> > form.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org <ma...@airflow.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org <ma...@airflow.apache.org>
> >
> >
>
--
Bugra Ozturk
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Buğra Öztürk <oz...@gmail.com>.
+1 non-binding
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 6:20 PM Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> I am not sure I agree with previous statements regarding the LDAP issue
> (specifically about blocker or not blocker for Airflow 3) but let's not
> discuss this here as it's out of scope for the AIPs we are voting here.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:15 PM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Big +1 to this one. I think this is the major blocker on that workstream:
> > deciding which tool we want to leverage to build the default auth manager
> > for Airflow 3. Once that decision taken I'll be happy to help to
> implement
> > the auth manager based upon that tool.
> >
> > On 2024/08/02 16:06:00 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > > Yeah. KeyCloak was just a repeating theme in a number of
> questions/issues
> > > some users raised (How do I integrate with KeyCloak) and it's well
> > > recognized in enterprise. But this is about as much as I know about it
> :)
> > >
> > > So yeah, if we have anyone who can dig deeper in the options we have or
> > > ideally someone who has experience in running and configuring /
> > developing
> > > for any of those - we are definitely on a lookout for such person.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 5:34 PM Vikram Koka
> <vikram@astronomer.io.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agreed Jarek on the parallel workstream for auth and also that should
> > not
> > > > be a blocker for 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if the right answer is actually Keycloak. There was some
> > > > research done by my colleagues within Astronomer using Casbin for the
> > same,
> > > > but I don't know the differences between those and other options. I
> > agree
> > > > that this needs some investigation before we can figure out the exact
> > > > timing. And therefore having the FAB provider as a backup option is
> > > > critical in my mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should
> have a
> > > > > separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for
> > > > example
> > > > > authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new
> > > > provider.
> > > > > Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and
> > roles -
> > > > > it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and
> > eventually
> > > > > teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some
> > flexibility of
> > > > > mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
> > > > >
> > > > > It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB
> > provider as
> > > > > backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good
> > to
> > > > > actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <
> > jedcunningham@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> > > > > > installing
> > > > > > > FAB provider explicitly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth
> > manager, as
> > > > it
> > > > > > won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is
> a
> > > > > primary
> > > > > > goal of this AIP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > > > > > > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB
> > for
> > > > > > > backwards compatibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining
> non-react
> > > > > pages.
> > > > > > Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should
> likely
> > add
> > > > > some
> > > > > > details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run
> > form.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Bugra Ozturk
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Elad Kalif <el...@apache.org>.
+1 binding
I am not sure I agree with previous statements regarding the LDAP issue
(specifically about blocker or not blocker for Airflow 3) but let's not
discuss this here as it's out of scope for the AIPs we are voting here.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:15 PM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Big +1 to this one. I think this is the major blocker on that workstream:
> deciding which tool we want to leverage to build the default auth manager
> for Airflow 3. Once that decision taken I'll be happy to help to implement
> the auth manager based upon that tool.
>
> On 2024/08/02 16:06:00 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> > Yeah. KeyCloak was just a repeating theme in a number of questions/issues
> > some users raised (How do I integrate with KeyCloak) and it's well
> > recognized in enterprise. But this is about as much as I know about it :)
> >
> > So yeah, if we have anyone who can dig deeper in the options we have or
> > ideally someone who has experience in running and configuring /
> developing
> > for any of those - we are definitely on a lookout for such person.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 5:34 PM Vikram Koka <vikram@astronomer.io.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed Jarek on the parallel workstream for auth and also that should
> not
> > > be a blocker for 3.0.
> > >
> > > I don't know if the right answer is actually Keycloak. There was some
> > > research done by my colleagues within Astronomer using Casbin for the
> same,
> > > but I don't know the differences between those and other options. I
> agree
> > > that this needs some investigation before we can figure out the exact
> > > timing. And therefore having the FAB provider as a backup option is
> > > critical in my mind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should have a
> > > > separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for
> > > example
> > > > authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new
> > > provider.
> > > > Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and
> roles -
> > > > it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and
> eventually
> > > > teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some
> flexibility of
> > > > mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
> > > >
> > > > It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB
> provider as
> > > > backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good
> to
> > > > actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <
> jedcunningham@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> > > > > installing
> > > > > > FAB provider explicitly?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth
> manager, as
> > > it
> > > > > won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is a
> > > > primary
> > > > > goal of this AIP.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > > > > > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB
> for
> > > > > > backwards compatibility.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining non-react
> > > > pages.
> > > > > Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should likely
> add
> > > > some
> > > > > details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run
> form.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>.
Big +1 to this one. I think this is the major blocker on that workstream: deciding which tool we want to leverage to build the default auth manager for Airflow 3. Once that decision taken I'll be happy to help to implement the auth manager based upon that tool.
On 2024/08/02 16:06:00 Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> Yeah. KeyCloak was just a repeating theme in a number of questions/issues
> some users raised (How do I integrate with KeyCloak) and it's well
> recognized in enterprise. But this is about as much as I know about it :)
>
> So yeah, if we have anyone who can dig deeper in the options we have or
> ideally someone who has experience in running and configuring / developing
> for any of those - we are definitely on a lookout for such person.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 5:34 PM Vikram Koka <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed Jarek on the parallel workstream for auth and also that should not
> > be a blocker for 3.0.
> >
> > I don't know if the right answer is actually Keycloak. There was some
> > research done by my colleagues within Astronomer using Casbin for the same,
> > but I don't know the differences between those and other options. I agree
> > that this needs some investigation before we can figure out the exact
> > timing. And therefore having the FAB provider as a backup option is
> > critical in my mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should have a
> > > separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for
> > example
> > > authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new
> > provider.
> > > Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and roles -
> > > it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and eventually
> > > teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some flexibility of
> > > mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
> > >
> > > It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB provider as
> > > backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good to
> > > actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <je...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> > > > installing
> > > > > FAB provider explicitly?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth manager, as
> > it
> > > > won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is a
> > > primary
> > > > goal of this AIP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > > > > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> > > > > backwards compatibility.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining non-react
> > > pages.
> > > > Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should likely add
> > > some
> > > > details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run form.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Yeah. KeyCloak was just a repeating theme in a number of questions/issues
some users raised (How do I integrate with KeyCloak) and it's well
recognized in enterprise. But this is about as much as I know about it :)
So yeah, if we have anyone who can dig deeper in the options we have or
ideally someone who has experience in running and configuring / developing
for any of those - we are definitely on a lookout for such person.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 5:34 PM Vikram Koka <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
wrote:
> Agreed Jarek on the parallel workstream for auth and also that should not
> be a blocker for 3.0.
>
> I don't know if the right answer is actually Keycloak. There was some
> research done by my colleagues within Astronomer using Casbin for the same,
> but I don't know the differences between those and other options. I agree
> that this needs some investigation before we can figure out the exact
> timing. And therefore having the FAB provider as a backup option is
> critical in my mind.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should have a
> > separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for
> example
> > authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new
> provider.
> > Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and roles -
> > it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and eventually
> > teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some flexibility of
> > mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
> >
> > It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB provider as
> > backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good to
> > actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <je...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> > > installing
> > > > FAB provider explicitly?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth manager, as
> it
> > > won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is a
> > primary
> > > goal of this AIP.
> > >
> > >
> > > > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > > > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> > > > backwards compatibility.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining non-react
> > pages.
> > > Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should likely add
> > some
> > > details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run form.
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Vikram Koka <vi...@astronomer.io.INVALID>.
Agreed Jarek on the parallel workstream for auth and also that should not
be a blocker for 3.0.
I don't know if the right answer is actually Keycloak. There was some
research done by my colleagues within Astronomer using Casbin for the same,
but I don't know the differences between those and other options. I agree
that this needs some investigation before we can figure out the exact
timing. And therefore having the FAB provider as a backup option is
critical in my mind.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:27 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should have a
> separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for example
> authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new provider.
> Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and roles -
> it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and eventually
> teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some flexibility of
> mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
>
> It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB provider as
> backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good to
> actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <je...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> > installing
> > > FAB provider explicitly?
> >
> >
> > Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth manager, as it
> > won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is a
> primary
> > goal of this AIP.
> >
> >
> > > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> > > backwards compatibility.
> >
> >
> > That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining non-react
> pages.
> > Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should likely add
> some
> > details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run form.
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
Yeah. And (a little tangential) - I really feel that we should have a
separate parallel workstream `Implement "proper" Auth Manager` (for example
authorizing users via Keycloak) - which should be creating a new provider.
Note that this provider should NOT have a way to manage users and roles -
it should allow mapping the "external" groups into roles (and eventually
teams) - with default roles defined, and likely have some flexibility of
mapping roles to be able to access particular resources.
It does not have to IMHO be ready for 3.0 - there likely FAB provider as
backup would be ok, but having it from day one would be really good to
actually benefit from splitting out FAB as dependency.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM Jed Cunningham <je...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by
> installing
> > FAB provider explicitly?
>
>
> Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth manager, as it
> won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is a primary
> goal of this AIP.
>
>
> > But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> > backwards compatibility.
>
>
> That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining non-react pages.
> Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should likely add some
> details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run form.
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Jed Cunningham <je...@apache.org>.
> Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by installing
> FAB provider explicitly?
Yes. That and configuring the FAB auth manager as the auth manager, as it
won't be the default most likely. Being able to maintain that is a primary
goal of this AIP.
> But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> backwards compatibility.
That's part of AIP-38 - it's in the list of the remaining non-react pages.
Granted, probably the most complex one remaining. We should likely add some
details there about this and likely also for the trigger dag run form.
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by rom sharon <ro...@gmail.com>.
generally +1 binding
Just to verify, users will still be able connect FAB to LDAP by installing
FAB provider explicitly?
בתאריך יום ו׳, 2 באוג׳ 2024 ב-2:09 מאת Jarek Potiuk <jarek@potiuk.com
>:
> +1 - with the same concerns as Kaxil.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:02 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding on both AIPs. But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> > form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> > backwards compatibility.
> >
> > On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 23:49, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
> > <Je...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 binding for both (lost overview about all the votes - did I already?
> > 😃)
> > >
> > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
> > >
> > > Jens Scheffler
> > >
> > > Alliance: Enabler - Tech Lead (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
> > > Robert Bosch GmbH | Hessbruehlstraße 21 | 70565 Stuttgart-Vaihingen |
> > > GERMANY | www.bosch.com
> > > Tel. +49 711 811-91508 | Mobil +49 160 90417410 |
> > > Jens.Scheffler@de.bosch.com
> > >
> > > Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
> > > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer;
> > > Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Christian Fischer, Dr. Markus
> > > Forschner,
> > > Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michał Modras <mi...@google.com.INVALID>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 10:23 PM
> > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core
> > > Dependency & UI REST API
> > >
> > > +1 for both, non-binding
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:34 PM Igor Kholopov
> > <ikholopov@google.com.invalid
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding, both)
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 PM Vikram Koka
> > > > <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vikram
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 binding for both
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > > > +1 binding!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
+1 - with the same concerns as Kaxil.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 1:02 AM Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 binding on both AIPs. But I want to make sure that we add Connection
> form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
> backwards compatibility.
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 23:49, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
> <Je...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding for both (lost overview about all the votes - did I already?
> 😃)
> >
> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
> >
> > Jens Scheffler
> >
> > Alliance: Enabler - Tech Lead (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
> > Robert Bosch GmbH | Hessbruehlstraße 21 | 70565 Stuttgart-Vaihingen |
> > GERMANY | www.bosch.com
> > Tel. +49 711 811-91508 | Mobil +49 160 90417410 |
> > Jens.Scheffler@de.bosch.com
> >
> > Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
> > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer;
> > Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Christian Fischer, Dr. Markus
> > Forschner,
> > Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michał Modras <mi...@google.com.INVALID>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 10:23 PM
> > To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core
> > Dependency & UI REST API
> >
> > +1 for both, non-binding
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:34 PM Igor Kholopov
> <ikholopov@google.com.invalid
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding, both)
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 PM Vikram Koka
> > > <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
> > > >
> > > > Vikram
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 binding for both
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > > +1 binding!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Kaxil Naik <ka...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding on both AIPs. But I want to make sure that we add Connection
form decoupling to AIP-79 (or other AIP) unless we rely on FAB for
backwards compatibility.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 23:49, Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
<Je...@de.bosch.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1 binding for both (lost overview about all the votes - did I already? 😃)
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>
> Jens Scheffler
>
> Alliance: Enabler - Tech Lead (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
> Robert Bosch GmbH | Hessbruehlstraße 21 | 70565 Stuttgart-Vaihingen |
> GERMANY | www.bosch.com
> Tel. +49 711 811-91508 | Mobil +49 160 90417410 |
> Jens.Scheffler@de.bosch.com
>
> Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer;
> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Christian Fischer, Dr. Markus
> Forschner,
> Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michał Modras <mi...@google.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 10:23 PM
> To: dev@airflow.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core
> Dependency & UI REST API
>
> +1 for both, non-binding
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:34 PM Igor Kholopov <ikholopov@google.com.invalid
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding, both)
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 PM Vikram Koka
> > <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
> > >
> > > Vikram
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 binding for both
> > > >
> > > > On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > +1 binding!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by "Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)" <Je...@de.bosch.com.INVALID>.
+1 binding for both (lost overview about all the votes - did I already? 😃)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Jens Scheffler
Alliance: Enabler - Tech Lead (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)
Robert Bosch GmbH | Hessbruehlstraße 21 | 70565 Stuttgart-Vaihingen | GERMANY | www.bosch.com
Tel. +49 711 811-91508 | Mobil +49 160 90417410 | Jens.Scheffler@de.bosch.com
Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer;
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr. Christian Fischer, Dr. Markus Forschner,
Stefan Grosch, Dr. Markus Heyn, Dr. Frank Meyer, Dr. Tanja Rückert
-----Original Message-----
From: Michał Modras <mi...@google.com.INVALID>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 10:23 PM
To: dev@airflow.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
+1 for both, non-binding
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:34 PM Igor Kholopov <ik...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding, both)
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 PM Vikram Koka
> <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
> >
> > Vikram
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 binding for both
> > >
> > > On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > > > +1 binding!
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Michał Modras <mi...@google.com.INVALID>.
+1 for both, non-binding
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:34 PM Igor Kholopov <ik...@google.com.invalid>
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding, both)
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 PM Vikram Koka <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
> >
> > Vikram
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 binding for both
> > >
> > > On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > > > +1 binding!
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Igor Kholopov <ik...@google.com.INVALID>.
+1 (non-binding, both)
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:04 PM Vikram Koka <vi...@astronomer.io.invalid>
wrote:
> +1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
>
> Vikram
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding for both
> >
> > On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > > +1 binding!
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Vikram Koka <vi...@astronomer.io.INVALID>.
+1 binding on both AIP-79 and AIP-84.
Vikram
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:35 AM Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 binding for both
>
> On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> > +1 binding!
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Vincent Beck <vi...@apache.org>.
+1 binding for both
On 2024/08/01 18:33:51 Jed Cunningham wrote:
> +1 binding!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Jed Cunningham <je...@apache.org>.
+1 binding!
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Pierre Jeambrun <pi...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding
On Mon 5 Aug 2024 at 08:17, Ephraim Anierobi <ep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 03:58, Vishnu Chilukoori <vi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding) for both
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 7:07 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding) for both APIs
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Wei
> > >
> > > > On Aug 5, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 (binding) for both
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:20 PM Brent Bovenzi
> > <brent@astronomer.io.invalid
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern
> > Web
> > > >> Application for Airflow 3.0. We would like to open it up for a vote.
> > > >>
> > > >> AIP-79
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-79%3A+Remove+Flask+AppBuilder+as+Core+dependency
> > > >>
> > > >> AIP-84 UI REST API
> > > >>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-84+UI+REST+API
> > > >>
> > > >> The vote will run for 5 days until next Monday August 5th 19:00 UTC.
> > > >>
> > > >> Consider this my +1 for both.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Brent
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Ephraim Anierobi <ep...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 03:58, Vishnu Chilukoori <vi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) for both
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 7:07 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) for both APIs
> >
> > Best,
> > Wei
> >
> > > On Aug 5, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (binding) for both
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:20 PM Brent Bovenzi
> <brent@astronomer.io.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern
> Web
> > >> Application for Airflow 3.0. We would like to open it up for a vote.
> > >>
> > >> AIP-79
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-79%3A+Remove+Flask+AppBuilder+as+Core+dependency
> > >>
> > >> AIP-84 UI REST API
> > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-84+UI+REST+API
> > >>
> > >> The vote will run for 5 days until next Monday August 5th 19:00 UTC.
> > >>
> > >> Consider this my +1 for both.
> > >>
> > >> - Brent
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Vishnu Chilukoori <vi...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding) for both
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 7:07 PM Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding) for both APIs
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > On Aug 5, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding) for both
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:20 PM Brent Bovenzi <brent@astronomer.io.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern Web
> >> Application for Airflow 3.0. We would like to open it up for a vote.
> >>
> >> AIP-79
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-79%3A+Remove+Flask+AppBuilder+as+Core+dependency
> >>
> >> AIP-84 UI REST API
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-84+UI+REST+API
> >>
> >> The vote will run for 5 days until next Monday August 5th 19:00 UTC.
> >>
> >> Consider this my +1 for both.
> >>
> >> - Brent
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Wei Lee <we...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding) for both APIs
Best,
Wei
> On Aug 5, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding) for both
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:20 PM Brent Bovenzi <br...@astronomer.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern Web
>> Application for Airflow 3.0. We would like to open it up for a vote.
>>
>> AIP-79
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-79%3A+Remove+Flask+AppBuilder+as+Core+dependency
>>
>> AIP-84 UI REST API
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-84+UI+REST+API
>>
>> The vote will run for 5 days until next Monday August 5th 19:00 UTC.
>>
>> Consider this my +1 for both.
>>
>> - Brent
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@airflow.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] AIP-79 & AIP-84 Remove Flask AppBuilder as a Core Dependency & UI REST API
Posted by Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding) for both
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:20 PM Brent Bovenzi <br...@astronomer.io.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jed and I prepared two AIPs to flesh out how to finish AIP-38 Modern Web
> Application for Airflow 3.0. We would like to open it up for a vote.
>
> AIP-79
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-79%3A+Remove+Flask+AppBuilder+as+Core+dependency
>
> AIP-84 UI REST API
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-84+UI+REST+API
>
> The vote will run for 5 days until next Monday August 5th 19:00 UTC.
>
> Consider this my +1 for both.
>
> - Brent
>