Re: [VOTE] Proposal accepted: change to Arrow Flight protocol: endpoint URIs

[Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net>]

Hello,

This vote closes with 4 binding approvals (+1) and zero disapprovals.
There were also several non-binding approvals.  The proposal is
therefore accepted.

Congrats to David Li and everyone who participated in the discussion.

Now the corresponding PR should be refreshed and reviewed:
https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4047

Regards

Antoine.


On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:36:26 +0200
Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> David Li has proposed to make the following change to the Flight gRPC
> service definition, as explained in this document:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Eps9eHvBc_qM8nRsTVwVCuWwHoEtQ-a-8Lv5dswuQoM/
> 
> The proposed change is to replace (host, port) pairs to identify
> endpoints with RFC 3986-compliant URIs.  This will help describe with
> much more flexibility how a given Flight stream can be reached, for
> example by allowing different transport protocols (gRPC over TLS or Unix
> sockets can be reasonably implemented, but in the future we may also
> want to implement transport protocols that are not gRPC-based, for
> example a REST protocol directly over HTTP).
> 
> An example URI is "grpc+tcp://192.168.0.1:3337".
> 
> Please vote whether to accept the changes. The vote will be open for at
> least 72 hours.
> 
> [ ] +1 Accept this change to the Flight protocol
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not accept the changes because...
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Antoine.
> 

Re: [VOTE] Proposal accepted: change to Arrow Flight protocol: endpoint URIs

[David Li <li...@gmail.com>]

Thanks all for the comments! I am on vacation, and will refresh the draft
PR as soon as I return.

Best,
David

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 00:49 Antoine Pitrou <so...@pitrou.net> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> This vote closes with 4 binding approvals (+1) and zero disapprovals.
> There were also several non-binding approvals.  The proposal is
> therefore accepted.
>
> Congrats to David Li and everyone who participated in the discussion.
>
> Now the corresponding PR should be refreshed and reviewed:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4047
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:36:26 +0200
> Antoine Pitrou <an...@python.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > David Li has proposed to make the following change to the Flight gRPC
> > service definition, as explained in this document:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Eps9eHvBc_qM8nRsTVwVCuWwHoEtQ-a-8Lv5dswuQoM/
> >
> > The proposed change is to replace (host, port) pairs to identify
> > endpoints with RFC 3986-compliant URIs.  This will help describe with
> > much more flexibility how a given Flight stream can be reached, for
> > example by allowing different transport protocols (gRPC over TLS or Unix
> > sockets can be reasonably implemented, but in the future we may also
> > want to implement transport protocols that are not gRPC-based, for
> > example a REST protocol directly over HTTP).
> >
> > An example URI is "grpc+tcp://192.168.0.1:3337".
> >
> > Please vote whether to accept the changes. The vote will be open for at
> > least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Accept this change to the Flight protocol
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 Do not accept the changes because...
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Antoine.
> >
>
>
>
>