I don't see how you make H2 Parser extendable, you will have to add plugin call to every *potentially* extendable place in it. In general this does not work. As H2 guy I would also reject patch like this.
Sergi 2017-04-12 13:10 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>: > Sergi, > > Please have a closer look at what I've written in my first post. I don't > see why we have to cling to H2 and its parsing modes all the time — after > all, we're just talking string processing now, aren't we? (Yes, complex and > non trivial, but still.) > > What's wrong with idea of patching H2 to allow custom parsing? (With the > parsing itself living in Ignite code, obviously, not in H2.). > > What I propose is just to make H2's Parser class extendable and make H2 > aware of its descendants via config params. And that's all with respect to > H2, nothing more. > > After that, on Ignite side we do all we want with our parser based on > theirs. It resembles story with custom types — first we make H2 extendable > in the way we need, then we introduce exact features we need on Ignite > side. > > — Alex > > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г. пользователь Sergi Vladykin написал: > > > It definitely makes sense to add a separate mode for Ignite in H2. Though > > it is wrong to think that it will allow us to add any crazy syntax we > want > > (and it is actually a wrong idea imo), only the minor variations of the > > existing syntax. But this must be enough. > > > > I believe we should end up with something like > > > > CREATE TABLE person > > ( > > id INT PRIMARY KEY, > > orgId INT AFFINITY KEY, > > name VARCHAR > > ) > > WITH "cfg:my_config_template.xml" > > > > Sergi > > > > > > 2017-04-12 7:54 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > Agree, the updated syntax looks better. One change though: KEY -> > PRIMARY > > > KEY. > > > > > > Sergi, what do you think? > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think "WITH" syntax is ugly and cumbersome. > > > > > > > > We should go with this one: > > > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int AFFINITY KEY, uid uuid KEY, firstName > > > > varchar, lastName varchar) > > > > > > > > All databases (i.e. [1], [2]) work this way, I see no reason to > invent > > > > something different and confuse the users. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/create > > > > -table-transact-sql#syntax-1 > > > > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createtable.html > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Paschenko < > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > For H2 it would be something like this - please note all those > > quotes, > > > > > commas and equality signs that would be mandatory: > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int, uid uuid, firstName varchar, lastName > > > > > varchar) WITH "keyFields=id,uuid","affinityKey=id" > > > > > > > > > > With suggested approach, it would be something like > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int AFFINITY KEY, uid uuid KEY, firstName > > > > > varchar, lastName varchar) > > > > > > > > > > While this may not look like a drastic improvement in this > particular > > > > > case, we someday most likely will want either an all-custom CREATE > > > > > CACHE command, or a whole bunch of new options for CREATE TABLE, if > > we > > > > > decide not to go with CREATE CACHE - I personally think that stuff > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE ... WITH > > > > > "keyFields=id,uuid","affinityKey=id","cacheType= > > > partitioned","atomicity= > > > > > atomic","partitions=3" > > > > > > > > > > which will arise if we continue to try to stuff everything into > WITH > > > > > will just bring more ugliness with time, and that's not to mention > > > > > that new CREATE CACHE syntax will be impossible or relatively hard > to > > > > > introduce as we will have to approve it with H2 folks, and that's > how > > > > > it will be with any new param or command that we want. > > > > > > > > > > Allowing to plug custom parser into H2 (as we do now with table > > > > > engine) will let us introduce any syntax we want and focus on > > > > > usability and not on compromises and workarounds (which WITH > keyword > > > > > currently is). > > > > > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-12 5:11 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > > Alexeander, > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please provide an example of what the CREATE TABLE > command > > > > would > > > > > > look like if we use WITH syntax from H2 vs. what you are > proposing? > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Alexander Paschenko < > > > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hello Igniters, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yup, it's THAT time once again as we haven't ultimately settled > on > > > > > >> anything with the subj. as of yet, but I believe that now with > DDL > > > on > > > > > >> its way this talk can't be avoided anymore (sorry guys). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The last time we talked about Ignite specific stuff we need to > > have > > > in > > > > > >> CREATE TABLE (key fields list, affinity key, am I missing > > > anything?), > > > > > >> the simplest approach suggested by Sergi was that we simply use > > WITH > > > > > >> part of H2's CREATE TABLE to pass stuff we need. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This could work, but needless to say that such commands would > look > > > > plain > > > > > >> ugly. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think we should go with custom syntax after all, BUT not in a > > way > > > > > >> suggested before by Sergi (propose Apache Ignite mode to H2). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Instead, I suggest that we propose to H2 patch that would allow > > > > > >> plugging in *custom SQL parser* directly based on theirs (quite > > > > > >> elegant one) – I've had a look at their code, and this should > not > > be > > > > > >> hard. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Work on such a patch making syntax parsing overridable would > take > > a > > > > > >> couple days which is not much time AND would give us the > > opportunity > > > > > >> to introduce to Ignite virtually any syntax we wish - both now > and > > > in > > > > > >> the future. Without worrying about compatibility with H2 ever > > again, > > > > > >> that is. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thoughts? After we agree on this principally and after H2 patch > > for > > > > > >> custom parsing is ready, we can roll our sleeves and focus on > > syntax > > > > > >> itself. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - Alex > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
