Yeah that's what I intended. Thanks for clarification. Let me start the vote
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 08:14, Sadha Chilukoori <sage.quoti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dongjoon, > > *To be clear, is the proposal aiming to make us to say like A instead of B > in our documentation?* > > *A. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RDD API, we need to use `Spark > Classic` mode instead.* > *B. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RDD API, we need to use `Spark > without Spark Connect` mode instead*. > > > Correct, the thread is recommending to use option A, consistently in all > the documentation. > > -Sadha > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 10:25 AM Dongjoon Hyun <dongj...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thank you for opening this thread, Hyukjin. >> >> In this discussion thread, we have three terminologies, (1) ~ (3). >> >> > Spark Classic (vs. Spark Connect) >> >> 1. Spark >> 2. Spark Classic (= A proposal for Spark without Spark Connect) >> 3. Spark Connect >> >> As Holden and Jungtaek mentioned, >> >> - (1) is definitely the existing code base which includes all (including >> RDD API, Spark Thrift Server, Spark Connect and so on). >> >> - (3) is is a very specific use case to a user when a Spark binary >> distribution is used with `--remote` option (or enabling the related >> features). Like Spark Thrift Server, after query planning steps, there is >> no fundamental difference in the execution code side in Spark clusters or >> Spark jobs. >> >> - (2) By the proposed definition, (2) `Spark Classic` is not (1) `Spark`. >> Like `--remote`, it's one of runnable modes. >> >> To be clear, is the proposal aiming to make us to say like A instead of B >> in our documentation? >> >> A. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RDD API, we need to use `Spark >> Classic` mode instead. >> B. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RDD API, we need to use `Spark >> without Spark Connect` mode instead. >> >> Dongjoon. >> >> >> >> On 2024/07/22 12:59:54 Sadha Chilukoori wrote: >> > +1 (non-binding) for classic. >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:59 AM Martin Grund >> <mar...@databricks.com.invalid> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > +1 for classic. It's simple, easy to understand and it doesn't have >> the >> > > negative meanings like legacy for example. >> > > >> > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 23:48 Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> Classic SGTM. >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jungtaek Lim < >> > >> kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> 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! >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>
