I see that Mongo's adapter uses the *EnumerableRel* interface, while Druid's uses *BindableRel*.
I can't decide why would I use any of those approaches to satisfy my requirements but I'm tempted to use Druid's because it combines operators that could be pushed down into a single node which sounds logical and easier to me than Mongo adapter's approach. My question is why would convert my table to an *EnumerableRel* or a *BindableRel* ? This JIRA issue <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-558> suggests that Bindable convention solves some Enumerable convention problems that I can't understand. What is meant by that Enumerable nodes need to implement themselves using "code", while with Bindable nodes, they can be implemented using and interpreter ? I understand what an interpreter is but what does it has to do with nodes here ?! Shouldn't a node just return a collection of records when implemented ? One last thing, I tend to always understand the reason behind naming things, so why is the *BindableRel* interface named *bindable* ? Thanks, Gelbana
