idea: Refactor the README to be more user-oriented

[Xuanwo]

Hi, iceberg-rust is going to release 0.3 and trying to attract users. I feel like it's the time to refactor the README to be more user-oriented.

The goal is to attract users of using iceberg-rust instead of treating it's still WIP.

I feel like we need to:

• Move roadmap to issues or projects, and just leave a link in README.
• Most content in README should be user-oriented that includes
  • Quick Start: 10 lines code to show how iceberg-rust works.
  • Examples: links to existing examples for more complicated use cases
  • Documentation: links to API documentation
  • Contribute: How to contribut to this projects, may be a link to contributing guide.
  • Users: Lists of iceberg-rust users.
  • Other stuffs like licenses, trademark and so one.

[Xuanwo]

I'm happy to handle this issue. I enjoy writing in markdown and coding in rust. 😄

[liurenjie1024]

+1 for this idea, with 0.3 release it's supposed to be more user friendly.

[Xuanwo]

Quick Start is not ready yet, I will start another PR to add it.

[Xuanwo]

Hi, @liurenjie1024, could you start a tracking issue for all features that we lack compared to java impl?

[liurenjie1024]

Hi, @liurenjie1024, could you start a tracking issue for all features that we lack compared to java impl?

It maybe hard to enumerate all features java provided, but I believe the core features are the format implemenation, catalog, fileio, transaction api, reader/writer api, which are already listed in README. Currently I have grouped features into these components in this project, so I'm not sure what kinds of issue you want? Maybe you can start with one and I can help to edit?

[Xuanwo]

Currently I have grouped features into these components in this project, so I'm not sure what kinds of issue you want? Maybe you can start with one and I can help to edit?

Understood.

I'd like a comparison between iceberg-rust and iceberg-java. It's a frequently asked question: what are the differences, and to what extent does iceberg-rust have the same features as the java implementation?

I will try to start one and invite you to join the edit.

[liurenjie1024]

I'd like a comparison between iceberg-rust and iceberg-java. It's a frequently asked question: what are the differences, and to what extent does iceberg-rust have the same features as the java implementation?

I think eventually we will reach feature parity as iceberg-java to implement iceberg spec, but integration with engines with be different.

[Xuanwo]

I think eventually we will reach feature parity as iceberg-java to implement iceberg spec, but integration with engines with be different.

Oh, I see. I got your point. The full java impl is not just about the iceberg table spec, it contains a full engine.

[liurenjie1024]

I think eventually we will reach feature parity as iceberg-java to implement iceberg spec, but integration with engines with be different.

Oh, I see. I got your point. The full java impl is not just about the iceberg table spec, it contains a full engine.

Yes, it contains spark, flink, kafak connect extensions.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open for 180 days with no activity. It will be closed in next 14 days if no further activity occurs. To permanently prevent this issue from being considered stale, add the label 'not-stale', but commenting on the issue is preferred when possible.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been closed because it has not received any activity in the last 14 days since being marked as 'stale'