I'd propose not to change the name of "Spark Connect" - the name represents
the characteristic of the mode (separation of layer for client and server).
Trying to remove the part of "Connect" would just make confusion.

+1 for Classic to existing mode, till someone comes up with better
alternatives.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:50 AM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@apache.org> wrote:

> I was thinking about a similar option too but I ended up giving this up ..
> It's quite unlikely at this moment but suppose that we have another Spark
> Connect-ish component in the far future and it would be challenging to come
> up with another name ... Another case is that we might have to cope with
> the cases like Spark Connect, vs Spark (with Spark Connect) and Spark
> (without Spark Connect) ..
>
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 at 09:59, Holden Karau <holden.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think perhaps Spark Connect could be phrased as “Basic* Spark” &
>> existing Spark could be “Full Spark” given the API limitations of Spark
>> connect.
>>
>> *I was also thinking Core here but we’ve used core to refer to the RDD
>> APIs for too long to reuse it here.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 8:02 PM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Classic is much better than Legacy. : )
>>>
>>> Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@apache.org> 于2024年7月18日周四 16:58写道:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that we need to standardize our terminology before moving
>>>> forward. For instance, when documenting, 'Spark without Spark Connect' is
>>>> too long and verbose. Additionally, I've observed that we use various names
>>>> for Spark without Spark Connect: Spark Classic, Classic Spark, Legacy
>>>> Spark, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I propose that we consistently refer to it as Spark Classic (vs. Spark
>>>> Connect).
>>>>
>>>> Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>

Reply via email to