I also have some confusion about interpreter binding. I have the following ideas: Storage problem with interpreter configuration？ It is necessary to store the interpreter through the interpreter.json file. If there are multiple different zeppelin instances, we can unify the interpreter by copying the interpreter.json file. Does the note require a default interpreter? The default interpreter for each note binding, I find it easy to confuse users, users need to remember which note's default interpreter is what. The note in the program can be bound to the default interpreter or not, which makes the code a bit more complicated. I recommend that each note must specify an interpreter. It takes only 2 seconds to specify the interpreter, so that the user is not confused, and it makes things clearer. I think it is more important. Optimize how the interpreter is specified The interpreter should be grouped by type(eg. spark, md ...). For example, the spark interpreter group contains all the interpreters for all spark1.x or spark2.x created by the system administrator. Different spark.yarn.queue in the spark interpreter of different user groups in our usage scenario requires different spark interpreters. we can use a dynamic form to allow users to easily select different interpreters and parameters. For example, select the spark by the drop-down box, select spark1.X, and then select %pyspark.
> 在 2018年10月3日，上午12:34，andreas.we...@gmail.com 写道： > > Sorry I see a breaking change here: Or can you explain, how (from 0.9.0 on) > users can change the default interpreter for existing notes, in case they > only use short syntax (e.g. %spark) > > In 0.8.0 they are used to see all available intrepreters in the interpreter > binding menu and move the default to the top of the list via drag and drop. > > In current master branch the interpreter binding menu only shows the > interpreters that are currently used. So with current state of implementation > (master branch) end users are facing a breaking change when upgrading to > 0.9.0. > > Do you really want to drop support for changing default interpreter in > existing notes (when short syntax is used)? > > > > On 2018/09/26 22:33:58, Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we can use default interpreter which would set when users create >> a note. It's a bit natural and won't break current behaviours >> >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 8:16 PM, andreas.we...@gmail.com < >> andreas.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Jongyoul. Changing the default interpreter in an existing >>> note is vital, especially when a note has plenty of paragraphs. >>> >>> E.g. we are using spark interpreter per Org Unit and also for different >>> sizings. >>> >>> Our end users are using the respective Spark Interpreter just by setting >>> it to default and then using short syntax: %pyspark, %sql or %spark . After >>> some time, they want to change the default interpreter to use a different >>> Spark Executor Sizings or hand a note over to another Org Unit. >>> >>> In that situation changing full qualified names in ALL paragraphs is not >>> really feasible IMHO. >>> >>> As changing the default paragraph in existing notes is now still missing >>> in master branch, is there already a Jira Issue filed? I couldn't find it >>> in the umbrella story: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-3594 >>> >>> This issue is currently blocking us from early testing the master branch >>> with productive use cases. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Andreas >>> >>> On 2018/07/06 07:53:04, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> We already allow setting default interpreter when creating note. Another >>>> way to set default interpreter is to reorder the interpreter setting >>>> binding in note page. >>>> >>>> But personally I don't recommend user to use short interpreter name >>> because >>>> of default interpreter. 2 Reaons: >>>> 1. It introduce in-accurate info. e.g. In our product, we have 2 spark >>>> interpreters (`spark`: for spark 1.x & `spark2` for spark 2.x). Then >>> user >>>> often specify `%spark` for spark interpreter. But it could mean both >>>> `%spark.spark` and `%spark2.spark`, So usually it is very hard to tell >>>> what's wrong when user expect to work spark2 but actually he still use >>>> spark 1.x. So usually we would recommend user to specify the full >>> qualified >>>> interpreter name. Just type several more characters which just cost 2 >>>> seconds but make it more clear and readable. >>>> 2. Another issue is that interpreter binding is stored in >>> interpreter.json, >>>> that means if they export this note to another zeppelin instance, the >>>> default interpreter won't work. >>>> >>>> So I don't think setting default interpreter via interpreter binding is >>>> valuable for users. If user really want to do that, I would suggest to >>>> store it in note.json instead of interpreter.json >>>> >>>> >>>> Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com>于2018年7月6日周五 下午3:36写道： >>>> >>>>> There are two purposes of interpreter binding. One is what you >>> mentioned >>>>> and another one is to manage a default interpreter. If we provide a >>> new way >>>>> to set default interpreter, I think we can remove them :-) We could set >>>>> permissions in other ways. >>>>> >>>>> Overall, +1 >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> I raise this thread to discuss whether we need the interpreter >>> binding. >>>>>> Currently when user create notes, they have to bind interpreters to >>> their >>>>>> notes in note page. Otherwise they will hit interpreter not found >>> issue. >>>>>> Besides that in zeppelin server side, we maintain the interpreter >>> binding >>>>>> info in memory as well as in interpreter.json. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, it is not necessary to do interpreter binding. Because it just >>> add >>>>>> extra burden to maintain the interpreter binding info in zeppelin >>> server >>>>>> side, and doesn't introduce any benefits. The only benefit is that we >>> will >>>>>> check whether user have permission to use this interpreter, but >>> actually >>>>>> zeppelin will check the permission when running paragraph, so I don't >>> think >>>>>> we need to introduce interpreter binding just for this kind of >>> permission >>>>>> check that we will do later. >>>>>> >>>>>> So overall, I would suggest to remove interpreter binding feature. >>> What >>>>>> do you think ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >>>>> http://madeng.net >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 >> http://madeng.net >>
