Skip to content

[doc] Update fluss-rust readme markdown#415

Open
luoyuxia wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
fluss-rs-update-readme
Open

[doc] Update fluss-rust readme markdown#415
luoyuxia wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
fluss-rs-update-readme

Conversation

@luoyuxia
Copy link
Contributor

@luoyuxia luoyuxia commented Mar 3, 2026

Purpose

Linked issue: close #xxx

See https://staging.crates.io/crates/fluss-rs-readme-preview
to preview the page in crate

Brief change log

Tests

API and Format

Documentation

Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Updates the Fluss Rust client crate’s README and crate metadata to provide a more complete “getting started” experience (KV + log table flow) and clearer distribution info for storage backends.

Changes:

  • Reworked crates/fluss/README.md with a fuller async usage example, badges, and a storage-backend feature matrix.
  • Updated crates/fluss/Cargo.toml package metadata (description/homepage/documentation, plus minor manifest cleanup).
  • Updated workspace Cargo.toml homepage URL.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File Description
crates/fluss/README.md Adds badges, a combined KV+log example, and documents storage feature flags.
crates/fluss/Cargo.toml Adjusts published crate metadata and simplifies prost-build spec.
Cargo.toml Updates workspace homepage URL.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@luoyuxia luoyuxia force-pushed the fluss-rs-update-readme branch from 9b7d603 to 8f52e79 Compare March 3, 2026 07:32
description = { workspace = true }
homepage = { workspace = true }
description = "The official rust client of Apache Fluss (Incubating)"
homepage = "https://clients.fluss.apache.org/"
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will wait util https://clients.fluss.apache.org/ is read.

@luoyuxia
Copy link
Contributor Author

luoyuxia commented Mar 3, 2026

@fresh-borzoni @leekeiabstraction Could you please help review this?

Copy link
Contributor

@fresh-borzoni fresh-borzoni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@luoyuxia TY, LGTM overall, left a couple of comments, but minors

The following example shows both **primary key (KV) tables** and **log tables** in one flow: connect, create a KV table (upsert + lookup), then create a log table (append + scan).

## Build
```rust
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i wonder how easy it is to maintain this code snippet long-term in README.md, since it's not compiled, so API changes will silently make it stale. We already have examples in crates/examples/ that cover these flows.

Would we consider to keep short quickstart snippet to just give users a feel for API, and link example folder for detailed workflows. This was inspired by what OpenDAL does: https://github.com/apache/opendal/blob/main/core/README.md

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@charlesdong1991

This crossed my mind as well (I partially mitigate for python package docs by using generating it from other existing website documentations).

Generally there are duplications in test cases, examples, documentations and package readmes.

It sounds like there's an opportunity to improve this e.g., test cases as ground truth, scripts then populate docs code snippets from test cases. This way, there's less effort in separately maintaining doc as well as ensuring that documents are accurate. The work it saves increases as we have more language bindings. The script can even highlight gaps in testing /feature.

But this might be something that we consider in the mid/longer term.

It's certainly worth coming up with a proposal for it (there might be some other OS project which already solves this.) Happy to collaborate on proposing something.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion! I think we can keep the current approach for now —
the snippet is relatively small, and the API it demonstrates is stable enough that it's
unlikely to go stale anytime soon. Let's leave it as-is and revisit if it becomes a
real maintenance pain point down the road.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cool! Let's keep as is and revisit if becoming an issue long term! Thanks for the discussion!

Copy link
Contributor

@leekeiabstraction leekeiabstraction left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TY for the PR. LGTM!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants