Hi Zhenqiu, Thanks for taking on this effort!
A couple questions: - Though this FLIP is about function DDL, can we also think about how the created functions can be mapped to CatalogFunction and see if we need to modify CatalogFunction interface? Syntax changes need to be backed by the backend. - Can we define a clearer, smaller scope targeting for Flink 1.10 among all the proposed changes? The current overall scope seems to be quite wide, and it may be unrealistic to get everything in a single release, or even a couple. However, I believe the most common user story can be something as simple as "being able to create and persist a java class-based udf and use it later in queries", which will add great value for most Flink users and is achievable in 1.10. Bowen On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:46 PM Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Community, > > FLIP-79 Flink Function DDL Support > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16kkHlis80s61ifnIahCj-0IEdy5NJ1z-vGEJd_JuLog/edit# > > > > This proposal aims to support function DDL with the consideration of SQL > syntax, language compliance, and advanced external UDF lib registration. > The Flink DDL is initialized and discussed in the design > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit#heading=h.wpsqidkaaoil > > > [1] by Shuyi Chen and Timo. As the initial discussion mainly focused on the > table, type and view. FLIP-69 [2] extend it with a more detailed discussion > of DDL for catalog, database, and function. Original the function DDL was > under the scope of FLIP-69. After some discussion > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7151> with the community, we > found that there are several ongoing efforts, such as FLIP-64 [3], FLIP-65 > [4], and FLIP-78 [5]. As they will directly impact the SQL syntax of > function DDL, the proposal wants to describe the problem clearly with the > consideration of existing works and make sure the design aligns with > efforts of API change of temporary objects and type inference for UDF > defined by different languages. > > The FlLIP outlines the requirements from related works, and propose a SQL > syntax to meet those requirements. The corresponding implementation is also > discussed. Please kindly review and give feedback. > > > Best Regards > Peter Huang >
