Hi All, We’ve had quite a lively debate in the “comments” section of Arina’s wonderful design doc. Zelaine made a great suggestion: summarize the user experience as a way of making sense of the wealth of detailed comments.
IMHO, the most important user experience goals are: 1. When a user submits a CREATE FUNCTION command, the command returns quickly (within a few seconds at most.) 2. If the above user then issues a query using that function (to the same Foreman), that query is guaranteed to successfully use the new function on all nodes. 3. Other users, connecting to any Foreman will see a very clean behavior when submitting a query with the new function. Before some point in time (can be different for each Foreman), a query with the function fails in planning. After that point, queries are guaranteed to successfully use the new function on all nodes. Basically, this says that CREATE FUNCTION can’t (potentially) take a long time. Use of functions can’t result in random failures during the time that the function is propagated across Drillbits. The goals we can perhaps postpone are: 1. Class name space isolation. (Allows two data scientists to define the same class without collisions.) 2. Function name spaces. (Allows me to define “paul.foo” and you to define “bob.foo” with out collisions. (Needed if many people develop functions independently. Else, we need a global name space.) 3. Dynamic DROP FUNCTION operation. (The issues here are messy, and it requires unloading classes and name space cleanup.) (Just let the cleanup happen offline.) 4. Dependency jars (e.g. third party libraries, etc.) (We require those to be statically added to the class path before Drill starts.) We are not creating per-user name spaces, or allowing people to use production clusters to try/revise functions. We’re just sampling deployment of simple functions. That’s my suggestion, what do others suggest? Thanks, - Paul > On Jul 7, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Arina Yelchiyeva <arina.yelchiy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I also agree on using Zookeeper. I have re-worked dynamic UDF support > document taking into account Zookeeper usage. > > Link to the document - > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MluM17EKajvNP_x8U4aymcOihhUm8BMm8t_hM0jEFWk/edit > > Kind regards > Arina > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:55 AM Paul Rogers <prog...@maprtech.com> wrote: > >> Great idea! We already use ZK to track storage plugins. ZK is perhaps >> better suited to register each jar and/or function that using files in DFS. >> Still need to work out the proper sequencing. But you are right, this is >> the kind of thing that ZK is supposed to solve. >> >> - Paul >> >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Parth Chandra <par...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Reading thru some of Paul's comments on maintaining a consistent state >> for >>> the registration of the UDF, it looks like we need a consensus protocol >> for >>> determining that all the Drillbits have the UDF deployed. >>> I believe Zookeeper can provide a stronger guarantee than a 2 phase >>> approach. Should we look into that? >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Arina Yelchiyeva < >>> arina.yelchiy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all! >>>> >>>> I have updated design document. >>>> Main changes: >>>> 1. Add to Drill’s config цшер the staging and registration DFS >> locations. >>>> 2. User is no longer is responsible for copying jars into drillbit >> nodes. >>>> Now user needs to copy jars into staging DFS location from where >> drillbits >>>> will copy them to local fs. >>>> 2. During UDFs registration jars will be moved to DFS registration area. >>>> 3. During start up drillbit will copy all jars from registration area, >> so >>>> newly added drillbit will have all UDFs as others. >>>> 4. Security issues - probably they will be added later as enhancement. >>>> >>>> More detains in the document: >>>> >>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MluM17EKajvNP_x8U4aymcOihhUm8BMm8t_hM0jEFWk/edit >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> Arina >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:25 AM Paul Rogers <prog...@maprtech.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> To answer Arina on item 3: there is actually no good location on any >>>> local >>>>> node to put the UDFs. Reason: DoY allows the admin to start a Drillbit >> on >>>>> any available node. When it starts, a new, fresh copy of Drill will be >>>>> downloaded, and this can happen after the user issued the CREATE >> command. >>>>> >>>>> What we need is a shared, secure distributed storage location from >> which >>>>> Drillbits can download the needed jar files. Something like… DFS! >> Indeed, >>>>> this is how YARN stores the Drill archive from which it creates the >> Drill >>>>> install directory on each node. We can’t quite use YARN’s mechanism >> (YARN >>>>> is aware only of the files uploaded when launching an app), but we can >> do >>>>> something similar. >>>>> >>>>> So, brainstorming a bit… >>>>> >>>>> 1. Store the UDF jar in a pre-defined DFS location. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The CREATE function 1) uploads the jar to the DFS location, and 2) >>>>> creates some kind of registry entry. >>>>> >>>>> 3. The DELETE function 1) deregisters the jar (and function), but 2) >> does >>>>> not delete the jar (this allows in-flight queries to complete.) >>>>> >>>>> 3. Drillbits periodically check DFS for changed registrations, >>>> downloading >>>>> any needed jars. (YARN, Spark, Storm and others already do something >>>>> similar.) >>>>> >>>>> 4. Registry check is “forced” when processing a query with a function >>>> that >>>>> is not currently registered. (Doing so resolves any possible race >>>>> conditions.) >>>>> >>>>> 5. Some process (perhaps time based) removes old, unregistered jar >> files. >>>>> (Or, we could get fancy and use reference counts. The reference count >>>> would >>>>> be required if the user wants to delete, then recreate, the same >> function >>>>> and jar to avoid conflict with in-flight queries.) >>>>> >>>>> We can build security on this as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Define permissions for who can write to the DFS location. Or, >> indeed, >>>>> have subdirectories by user and grant each user permission only on >> their >>>>> own UDF directory. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Provide separate registries for per-user functions (private) and >>>> global >>>>> functions (public). Only the admin can add global functions. But, only >>>> the >>>>> user that uploads a private function can use it. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Leverage the Java class loader to isolate UDFs in their own name >> space >>>>> (see Eclipse & Tomcat for examples). That is, Drill can call into a >> UDF, >>>>> UDFs can call selected Drill code, but UDFs can’t shadow Drill classes >>>>> (accidentally or maliciously.) Plus, my function Foo won’t clash with >>>> your >>>>> function Foo if both are private. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry that this has wandered a bit far from the original simple design, >>>>> but the above may capture much of what folks expect in modern >> distributed >>>>> big data systems. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if a good next step might be to review the notes in the design >>>>> doc, in the JIRA, and in this e-mail chain and to prepare a summary of >>>>> technical requirements, and a proposed design. Postpone, at least for >>>> now, >>>>> concerns about the amount of work; we can worry about that once folks >>>> agree >>>>> on your revised design. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> - Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Arina Yelchiyeva < >>>>> arina.yelchiy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Authorization model mentioned by Julia and John >>>>>> If user won't have rights to copy jars to UDF classpath, which can be >>>>>> restricted by file system, he won't be able to do much harm by running >>>>>> CREATE command. If UDFs from jar were already registered, CREATE >>>>> statement >>>>>> will fail. CREATE OR REPLACE will just re-register UDFs. >>>>>> But DELETE command is not safe. If user knows jar name, he can delete >>>> all >>>>>> associated with it UDFs, as well as the binary and source jars. That's >>>>>> where we'll probably need to impose restrictions. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:34 PM Arina Yelchiyeva < >>>>> arina.yelchiy...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. DELETE command - I missed to indicate it document but had it in my >>>>>>> mind. When user issues DELETE command, all UDF associated with >>>> indicated >>>>>>> jar is removed from DrillFunctionRegistry. And then binary and source >>>>>>> files are also deleted from UDF classpath. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Distribution race condition described by Paul >>>>>>> User issues CREATE command and gets confirmation that UDFs is >>>> registered >>>>>>> only if all drilllbits have confirmed that registration was >>>> successful. >>>>>>> I don't expect user to start using UDFs in queries prior to CREATE >>>>> command >>>>>>> success / failure result, which is possible but strange. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. DoY >>>>>>> @Paul >>>>>>> If instead of using $DRILL_HOME/jars/3rdparty/udf directly we use >>>>>>> $DRILL_UDF environment variable which will be set during drillbit >>>> start >>>>>>> (like $DRILL_LOG_DIR). Location stored in this variable will be added >>>> to >>>>>>> Drill classpath during start. >>>>>>> Will it ease DoY integration somehow? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>> Arina >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:15 PM yuliya Feldman >>>>> <yufeld...@yahoo.com.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just thoughts: >>>>>>>> You can try to reuse distributed cache Let Drill AM do the needful >> in >>>>>>>> terms of orchestrating UDF jars distribution. >>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>> I would be inclined to have a common path that is independent of the >>>>> fact >>>>>>>> that it is Drill on YARN or not, as maintaining two separate ways of >>>>>>>> dealing with loading/unloading UDFs will be painful and error prone. >>>>>>>> One more note (I left a comment in the doc) - not sure about >>>>>>>> authorization model here - we need to have some. >>>>>>>> Just my 2cThanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Paul Rogers <prog...@maprtech.com> >>>>>>>> To: "dev@drill.apache.org" <dev@drill.apache.org> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:32 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Dynamic UDFs support >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Neeraja, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proposal calls for the user to copy the jar file to each >> Drillbit >>>>>>>> node. The jar would go into a new $DRILL_HOME/jars/3rdparty/udf >>>>> directory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Drill-on-YARN (DoY), YARN is responsible for copying Drill code >> to >>>>>>>> each node (which is good.) YARN puts that code in a location known >>>>> only to >>>>>>>> YARN. Since the location is private to YARN, the user can’t easily >>>> hunt >>>>>>>> down the location in order to add the udf jar. Even if the user did >>>>> find >>>>>>>> the location, the next Drillbit to start would create a new copy of >>>> the >>>>>>>> Drill software, without the udf jar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Second, in DoY we have separated user files from Drill software. >> This >>>>>>>> makes it much easier to distribute the software to each node: we >> give >>>>> the >>>>>>>> Drill distribution tar archive to YARN, and YARN copies it to each >>>>> node and >>>>>>>> untars the Drill files. We make a separate copy of the (far smaller) >>>>> set of >>>>>>>> user config files. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the udf jar goes into a Drill folder >>>>> ($DRILL_HOME/jars/3rdparty/udf), >>>>>>>> then the user would have to rebuild the Drill tar file each time >> they >>>>> add a >>>>>>>> udf jar. When I tried this myself when building DoY, I found it to >> be >>>>> slow >>>>>>>> and error-prone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, the solution is to place the udf code in the new “site” >>>> directory: >>>>>>>> $DRILL_SITE/jars. That’s what that is for. Then, let DoY >>>> automatically >>>>>>>> distribute the code to every node. Perfect! Except that it does not >>>>> work to >>>>>>>> dynamically distribute code after Drill starts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For DoY, the solution requirements are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Distribute code using Drill itself, rather than manually copying >>>>> jars >>>>>>>> to (unknown) Drill directories. >>>>>>>> 2. Ensure the solution works even if another Drillbit is spun up >>>> later, >>>>>>>> and uses the original Drill tar file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’m thinking we want to leverage DFS: place udf files into a >>>> well-known >>>>>>>> DFS directory. Register the udf into, say, ZK. When a new Drillbit >>>>> starts, >>>>>>>> it looks for new udf jars in ZK, copies the file to a temporary >>>>> location, >>>>>>>> and launches. An existing Drill is notified of the change and does >>>> the >>>>> same >>>>>>>> download process. Clean-up is needed at some point to remove ZK >>>>> entries if >>>>>>>> the udf jar becomes statically available on the next launch. That >>>> needs >>>>>>>> more thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We’d still need the phases mentioned earlier to ensure consistency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggestions anyone as to how to do this super simply & still get it >>>> to >>>>>>>> work with DoY? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Paul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Neeraja Rentachintala < >>>>>>>> nrentachint...@maprtech.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will need to work with YARN (Once Drill is YARN enabled, I >>>> would >>>>>>>>> expect a lot of users using it in conjunction with YARN). >>>>>>>>> Paul, I am not clear why this wouldn't work with YARN. Can you >>>>>>>> elaborate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Neeraja >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Paul Rogers <prog...@maprtech.com >>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Good enough, as long as we document the limitation that this >>>> feature >>>>>>>> can’t >>>>>>>>>> work with YARN deployment as users generally do not have access to >>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> temporary “localization” directories where the Drill code is >> placed >>>>> by >>>>>>>> YARN. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that the jar distribution race condition issue occurs with >> the >>>>>>>>>> proposed design: I believe I sketched out a scenario in one of the >>>>>>>> earlier >>>>>>>>>> comments. Drillbit A receives the CREATE FUNCTION command. It >> tells >>>>>>>>>> Drillbit B. While informing the other Drillbits, Drillbit B plans >>>> and >>>>>>>>>> launches a query that uses the function. Drillbit Z starts >>>> execution >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> query before it learns from A about the new function. This will be >>>>>>>> rare — >>>>>>>>>> just rare enough to create very hard to reproduce bugs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only reliable solution is to do the work in multiple passes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pass 1: Ask each node to load the function, but not make it >>>> available >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> the planner. (it would be available to the execution engine.) >>>>>>>>>> Pass 2: Await confirmation from each node that this is done. >>>>>>>>>> Pass 3: Alert every node that it is now free to plan queries with >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally, I wonder if we should design the SQL syntax based on a >>>>>>>> long-term >>>>>>>>>> design, even if the feature itself is a short-term work-around. >>>>>>>> Changing >>>>>>>>>> the syntax later might break scripts that users might write. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, the question for the group is this: is the value of >>>> semi-complete >>>>>>>>>> feature sufficient to justify the potential problems? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Paul >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:15 PM, Parth Chandra < >> pchan...@maprtech.com >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Moving discussion to dev. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I believe the aim is to do a simple implementation without the >>>>>>>> complexity >>>>>>>>>>> of distributing the UDF. I think the document should make this >>>>>>>> limitation >>>>>>>>>>> clear. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Per Paul's point on there being a simpler solution of just having >>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>> drillbit detect the if a UDF is present, I think the problem is >>>> if a >>>>>>>> UDF >>>>>>>>>>> get's deployed to some but not all drillbits. A query can then >>>> start >>>>>>>>>>> executing but not run successfully. The intent of the create >>>>> commands >>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>> be to ensure that all drillbits have the UDF or none would. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think Jacques' point about ownership conflicts is not addressed >>>>>>>>>> clearly. >>>>>>>>>>> Also, the unloading is not clear. The delete command should >>>> probably >>>>>>>>>> remove >>>>>>>>>>> the UDF and unload it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Paul Rogers < >>>> prog...@maprtech.com >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed the spec; many comments posted. Three primary comments >>>> for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> community to consider. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The design conflicts with the Drill-on-YARN project. Is this >> a >>>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>>>> fix for one unique problem, or is it worth expanding the >> solution >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> with Drill-on-YARN deployments? Might be hard to make the two >>>> work >>>>>>>>>> together >>>>>>>>>>>> later. See comments in docs for details. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Have we, by chance, looked at how other projects handle code >>>>>>>>>>>> distribution? Spark, Storm and others automatically deploy code >>>>>>>> across >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> cluster; no manual distribution to each node. The key difference >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>>> Drill and others is that, for Storm, say, code is associated >>>> with a >>>>>>>> job >>>>>>>>>>>> (“topology” in Storm terms.) But, in Drill, functions are global >>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> no obvious life cycle that suggests when the code can be >>>> unloaded. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Have considered the class loader, dependency and name space >>>>>>>> isolation >>>>>>>>>>>> issues addressed by such products as Tomcat (web apps) or >> Eclipse >>>>>>>>>>>> (plugins)? Putting user code in the same namespace as Drill code >>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> quick >>>>>>>>>>>> & dirty. It turns out, however, that doing so leads to problems >>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> require long, frustrating debugging sessions to resolve. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Addressing item 1 might expand scope a bit. Addressing items 2 >>>> and >>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>>> are a >>>>>>>>>>>> big increase in scope, so I won’t be surprised if we leave those >>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> later. (Though, addressing item 2 might be the best way to >>>> address >>>>>>>> item >>>>>>>>>> 1.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we want a very simple solution that requires minimal change, >>>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>> can use an even simpler solution. In the proposed design, the >>>> user >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>>>> must distribute code to all the nodes. The primary change is to >>>>> tell >>>>>>>>>> Drill >>>>>>>>>>>> to load (or unload) that code. Can accomplish the same result >>>>> easier >>>>>>>>>> simply >>>>>>>>>>>> by having Drill periodically scan certain directories looking >> for >>>>> new >>>>>>>>>> (or >>>>>>>>>>>> removed) jars? Still won’t work with YARN, or solve the name >>>> space >>>>>>>>>> issues, >>>>>>>>>>>> but will work for existing non-YARN Drill users without new SQL >>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Jacques Nadeau < >> jacq...@dremio.com >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Two quick thoughts: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - (user) In the design document I didn't see any discussion of >>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership/conflicts or unloading. Would be helpful to see the >>>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>> - (dev) There is a row oriented facade via the >>>>>>>>>>>>> FieldReader/FieldWriter/ComplexWriter classes. That would be a >>>>> good >>>>>>>>>> place >>>>>>>>>>>>> to start when trying to implement an alternative interface. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau >>>>>>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:32 AM, John Omernik < >>>> j...@omernik.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, I don't see it as a priority issue. I think some of >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> around community java UDFs could be a better approach. I'd >> hate >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from other work to hack in something like this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Paul Rogers < >>>>> prog...@maprtech.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted refers to source code transformation. Drill gains its >>>> speed >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vectors. However, VVs are a far cry from the row-based >>>> interface >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere mortals are accustomed to using. Since VVs are very type >>>>>>>>>> specific, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code is typically generated to handle the specifics of each >>>>> type. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accessing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VVs in Jython may be a bit of a challenge because of the >>>>>>>> "impedence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mismatch" between how VVs work and the row-and-column view >>>>>>>> expected >>>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (non-Drill) developers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we've considered providing a row-oriented >> "facade" >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by roll-your own data sources and user-defined row >>>>>>>> transforms? >>>>>>>>>>>> Might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a hiccup in the fast VV pipeline, but might be handy for >>>>> users >>>>>>>>>>>> willing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to trade a bit of speed for convenience. With such a facade, >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Jython >>>>>>>>>>>>>> row >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transforms that John mentions could be quite simple. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Ted Dunning < >>>>>>>> ted.dunn...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since UDF's use source code transformation, using Jython >>>> would >>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Arina Yelchiyeva < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arina.yelchiy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Charles, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that I am aware of. Proposed solution doesn't invent >>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adds possibility to add UDFs without drillbit restart. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are welcomed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:52 PM Charles Givre < >>>>> cgi...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arina, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has there been any discussion about making it possible via >>>>>>>> Jython >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something for users to write simple UDFs in Python? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My ideal would be to have this capability integrated in >> the >>>>> web >>>>>>>>>> GUI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a user could write their UDF (in Python) right there, >>>>>>>> submit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be deployed to Drill if it passes validation tests. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 09:34, Arina Yelchiyeva < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arina.yelchiy...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have created Jira to allow dynamic UDFs support in >>>> Drill ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4726). There >>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design document in Jira description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments or suggestions are welcomed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arina >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >>
