Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove Catalog from spec #18
Remove Catalog from spec #18
Changes from all commits
8d8541c
3d63adc
9b03bdf
d3afd9b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain why this is required now? For stores NOT managed by arraylake, this is going to make it very hard to move icechunk data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with you that it should not be required. Not sure why I changed my mind here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pushing this just a bit further will help us scope the changes on the service side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What additional detail do you think is needed to unblock work on the service side?
The idea is that, instead of reading and writing
icechunk.json
directly in object storage, the client should read (GET) and write (POST) its contents to the synchronization endpoint. The service should store this data in a database.Getting more specific means specifying in detail the contents of the
icechunk.json
file. This is just the state file. From my POV, that's already pretty detailed (individual fields are specified), although it could be tightened up a bit.Like the rest of the spec, this is likely to evolve a bit as we actually implement it. And as @paraseba has frequently reminded us, the state file is really the last step in terms of implementation. So getting overly specific about the state file contents now feels a little premature.
Happy to do more work here, just looking for guidance on what would be helpful.