venice

Is the RocksDB implementation located in `com.linkedin.davinci.store.rocksdb` considered the *canonical implementation* for local storage across both the Venice Server and the Da Vinci Client?

Assuming I understand what you mean by 'canonical representation'

But that's the means of local persistence in both modes

Depending on what you're looking to accomplish, re-implementing that interface may not be the ideal path... you could also consider the DVRT interface, which is a bit easier to work with, and quite powerful as well (could be used to fully swap out RocksDB).

<https://venicedb.org/docs/user_guide/read_api/da_vinci_client#record-transformer-dvrt>