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.