Skip to content
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

[Feature] In-Memory / no persistence storage runtime #544

Closed
1 of 2 tasks
touma-I opened this issue Aug 26, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed
1 of 2 tasks

[Feature] In-Memory / no persistence storage runtime #544

touma-I opened this issue Aug 26, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@touma-I
Copy link
Collaborator

touma-I commented Aug 26, 2024

Search before asking

  • I searched the issues and found no similar issues.

Component

Library/core

Feature

In certain environment there is a need not to rely on persistence storage (local disk, S3, etc.). Currently, when a transform is initialized, it defines the folders where the input and output for the transform reside. It would be desirable to identify an alternative approach where the referenced input/output are in-memory objects.

Are you willing to submit a PR?

  • Yes I am willing to submit a PR!
@touma-I touma-I added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 26, 2024
@touma-I
Copy link
Collaborator Author

touma-I commented Aug 26, 2024

@touma-I to investigate how this is currently done by the datasift team.

@touma-I touma-I self-assigned this Aug 26, 2024
@daw3rd
Copy link
Member

daw3rd commented Aug 26, 2024

Isn't this a call to transform() with an arrow Table or transform_binary() with byte array and file name (dummy perhaps) that indicates the file extension? If not, can you suggest an API?

@daw3rd
Copy link
Member

daw3rd commented Sep 13, 2024

This may be satisfied with the in-memory transform pipeline PR #424

@daw3rd
Copy link
Member

daw3rd commented Sep 13, 2024

This may be duplicate of issue #374

@daw3rd daw3rd added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Sep 13, 2024
@daw3rd
Copy link
Member

daw3rd commented Sep 16, 2024

Closing and moving design discussion to #374

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants