-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 101
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 the need for registering an ObjectStore for remote files #899
Comments
Just like delta-rs, polars etc we should just take the objectstore from the uri and then parse the storage options either as parameter or env variables |
Related, though not yet on crates.io: https://github.com/developmentseed/object-store-rs |
I'd be happy to work with you to use this! Indeed this is the explicit goal of |
@kylebarron What are your thoughts on how to approach this? I'm happy to try to address it and submit a PR for it. I'd like the same thing for github.com/apache/datafusion-ray, as after the rewrite, I need to add support for object stores back in and I'd love it to be consistent with how it will work in datafusion-python. |
I'd suggest to wait until the In essence, you can just re-export the store builders and then just accept Then copy the type hints for the builders if desired. That exposes the full builder API as documented within |
I'm not sure I follow exactly. Do we need to use python bindings to the object_store? If we are going to, in |
To answer the original question of this issue: I think it's necessary to export classes to Python to customize But it's an API decision whether to require that the But the point of |
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge? Please describe what you are trying to do.
Currently, we need to register an ObjectStore to register remote files stored in S3, https, etc. This could be more ergonomic from a DX perspective.
Describe the solution you'd like
Automatically detect if an ObjectStore is needed, like in the datafusion-cli; see here.
Describe alternatives you've considered
keep it as it is now
Additional context
We should increase the test coverage for ObjectStore
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: