tustvold commented on issue #1314:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/1314#issuecomment-2893312272
> Since the goal of this refactoring is to make underlying implementation
extensible and allowing user to choose provider freely, I don't think it's a
good idea to bind the int
liurenjie1024 commented on issue #1314:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/1314#issuecomment-2893204214
> > I still recommend wrapping it in a struct when passing around in the
crate
> So are you proposing making Storage a trait instead? If so for the sake of
argument
tustvold commented on issue #1314:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/1314#issuecomment-2893032985
> I still recommend wrapping it in a struct when passing around in the crate
So are you proposing making Storage a trait instead? If so for the sake of
argument, could th
liurenjie1024 commented on issue #1314:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/1314#issuecomment-2892787039
Despite the discussion points raised by @tustvold , I have other things to
discuss:
1. Should we have an unified `FileIOBuilder` trait, just like what we did
for `Catal
liurenjie1024 commented on issue #1314:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/1314#issuecomment-2892773303
Hi, sorry for being late for this party, and thanks @tustvold for the
summary of the discussions.
> 1. Should implementations pass around Archttps://github.com/apach
