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
[Format] Flight Location should be more flexible than a (host, port) pair #21183
Comments
Antoine Pitrou / @pitrou: |
Jacques Nadeau / @jacques-n: |
Antoine Pitrou / @pitrou: In any case, (host, port) is inflexible, and it's baked in the protocol, which is more delicate to change than an API. |
Jacques Nadeau / @jacques-n: I'm all for adding flexibility for real things we want to support assuming as part of that we're including support for those items in at least the C++ and Java libraries.
|
Antoine Pitrou / @pitrou: In Java I'm assuming there's already some standard APIs for that.
|
Jacques Nadeau / @jacques-n: |
Wes McKinney / @wesm: |
Wes McKinney / @wesm: |
The more future-proof solution is probably to define a URI format. gRPC already has something like that, though we might want to define our own format:
https://grpc.io/grpc/cpp/md_doc_naming.html
Reporter: Antoine Pitrou / @pitrou
Assignee: David Li / @lidavidm
Related issues:
PRs and other links:
Note: This issue was originally created as ARROW-4651. Please see the migration documentation for further details.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: