[FEATURE REQUEST] Support endpoints field in the config endpoint

[flyrain]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

No response

Describe the solution you'd like

The endpoints field was introduced in Iceberg REST spec recently to describe the server capabilities.
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/blob/c0d73f4ef5c16401bdfd62e1745faf2fbbf62177/open-api/rest-catalog-open-api.yaml#L150

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

[danielhumanmod]

Hi @flyrain , I am interested in working on this feature :)

[danielhumanmod]

And I have a question about the rule for adding API endpoints: do we mainly based on the access control privileges?

For example:

• if a user with NAMESPACE_LIST privilege, add these into endpoints
  • GET /v1/{prefix}/namespaces
  • GET /v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}
  • GET /v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}/tables
  • GET /v1/{prefix}/namespaces/{namespace}/tables/{table}
• if a user with NAMESPACE_CREATE, add this into endpoints
  • POST /v1/{prefix}/namespaces
• if a user with NAMESPACE_DROP , add this into endpoints
  • `DELETE /v1/{prefix}/namespaces'

[flyrain]

I don't believe it emits endpoints based on privileges; it should simply list all available endpoints. Even if a client lacks the privilege for a specific endpoint, they would still receive the full capabilities of the server.

[danielhumanmod]

I don't believe it emits endpoints based on privileges; it should simply list all available endpoints. Even if a client lacks the privilege for a specific endpoint, they would still receive the full capabilities of the server.

Thanks for the clarification! That approach makes a lot more sense, my earlier approach was overcomplicating it.

[danielhumanmod]

Hi @flyrain, I created a draft PR as the POC of this feature. However, I’d like your suggestion on one thing: the endpoints-related feature in Iceberg hasn’t been released yet (current version 1.6.1) and is planned for 1.7.0. I’ve temporarily extended some necessary classes as a workaround. Would you suggest we proceed with the current approach, or would it be better to pause development and continue once 1.7.0 is released and integrated with Polaris?

[flyrain]

I'd recommend to wait for iceberg 1.7.0. It's not urgent as clients probably also wait for 1.7.