Seven-file design review at docs/sdk/ covering the binding strategy,
API surface, M1-M4 milestones, risks, and a one-page decision record
for shipping a Python SDK.
Recommended path: **PyO3 + maturin, single in-tree
`crates/ruvector-py/` cdylib, abi3-py39 wheel via cibuildwheel,
`pyo3-asyncio` over a singleton tokio runtime.**
Why:
- The existing `*-node` NAPI templates (e.g.
`crates/ruvector-diskann-node/src/lib.rs`) already prove out the
opaque-handle + `Arc<RwLock<…>>` shape PyO3 mirrors line-for-line —
~70% port, ~30% lifetime gymnastics.
- abi3 collapses the wheel matrix from ~25 (cpython36 × 5 platforms)
to 5 (one wheel per platform, all py3.9+).
- Singleton tokio runtime avoids the "one runtime per call" overhead
while remaining compatible with asyncio + uvloop.
Milestone shape (each with explicit scope + acceptance tests):
M1 — RaBitQ-only Python wheel. Just the published
`ruvector-rabitq` crate exposed via PyO3. Smallest possible
useful surface. ~600 LoC, 3 weeks.
M2 — ruLake. Async via pyo3-asyncio. Witness verify exposed.
~900 LoC, 4 weeks.
M3 — Embeddings + ML helpers. Wrap consumer-facing parts of
`ruvector-cnn` / `ruvllm`. ~700 LoC, 3 weeks.
M4 — A2A agent client. Wrap `rvagent-a2a` so Python apps can
dispatch tasks to A2A peers, including signed AgentCard
discovery. ~800 LoC, 4 weeks.
Three acceptance gates that gate the whole effort:
1. A Python user can do RAG over 1 M vectors in <5 lines.
2. An asyncio user can stream A2A task updates without thread
fights.
3. `pip install ruvector` takes <10 s on a stock machine.
Top 3 risks identified:
R1 — tokio runtime + PyO3 + asyncio/uvloop interop. Mitigation:
single lazy runtime, `pyo3-asyncio` shim.
R3 — wheel size. M4 budget is 22 MB; A2A deps (axum + reqwest +
rustls) could blow it. Mitigation: feature-gate axum/reqwest
behind `agent` extra; default install is rabitq + rulake only.
R7 — PyPI name squat on `ruvector`. Mitigation: register placeholder
before M1 ships.
Nuance discovered: `ruvector-rabitq` has **no** sibling `*-node` or
`*-wasm` crate — unlike most consumer crates. M1 is therefore clean
greenfield: no parity-pressure to match a flaky NAPI signature, and
it confirms rabitq alone is the right starter target rather than the
umbrella `ruvector` crate the npm package wraps.
Planning doc only; no implementation.
Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
