On Fri, Sep 14, 2018, 3:26 PM Erik Erlandson <eerla...@redhat.com> wrote:
> To be clear, is this about "python-friendly API" or "friendly python API" ? > Well what would you consider to be different between those two statements? I think it would be good to be a bit more explicit, but I don't think we should necessarily limit ourselves. > > On the python side, it might be nice to take advantage of static typing. > Requires python 3.6 but with python 2 going EOL, a spark-3.0 might be a > good opportunity to jump the python-3-only train. > I think we can make types sort of work without ditching 2 (the types only would work in 3 but it would still function in 2). Ditching 2 entirely would be a big thing to consider, I honestly hadn't been considering that but it could be from just spending so much time maintaining a 2/3 code base. I'd suggest reaching out to to user@ before making that kind of change. > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> > wrote: > >> Since we're talking about Spark 3.0 in the near future (and since some >> recent conversation on a proposed change reminded me) I wanted to open up >> the floor and see if folks have any ideas on how we could make a more >> Python friendly API for 3.0? I'm planning on taking some time to look at >> other systems in the solution space and see what we might want to learn >> from them but I'd love to hear what other folks are thinking too. >> >> -- >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): >> https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> >> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >> > >
