wgtmac commented on issue #2: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-cpp/issues/2#issuecomment-2498269656
Thanks @Fokko for the reply! > I would also lean towards having a separate type system. I agree that the efficiency of field-id and inability to set default value make arrow schema not that appealing. I think the problem is `arrow::Field` not `arrow::DataType`. What about creating yet another `iceberg::Field` to wrap `arrow::DataType` with better support of iceberg concepts? In this way, the type visitors of arrow-cpp still work and so do arrow::Expression and arrow::Scalar. @Fokko @zeroshade > I think we can wrap the arrow::FileSystem within a FileIO Yes, it is exactly what's in my mind. > people could even provide their own FileIO through configuration if they like. This might be challenging since we don't have an easy approach to use reflection in C++. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@iceberg.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@iceberg.apache.org
