On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Ram Venkatesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Eran, > > Good idea, maybe we can create a base JdbcInterpreter class and have > implementations like HiveInterpreter, OtherInterpreter for specific > functionality (for example the Hive interpreter logic for progress is going > to be Hive specific). This will let us implement connection pooling, fatal > error detection, result set composition etc. in a common manner. > Does Zepelling need any write-capabilities for JDBC driver? I personally think No, but just confirming. Apache Ignite, for example, only provides read-only JDBC connectivity. > > Another proposal: instead of %sql implying SparkSql, given sql access > seems to be popular should we change that interpreter directive to > > %sparksql > %hiveql > … > > This would make it clear to the user what dialect / subset of SQL is > appropriate for which note. If others also think this is useful I would > like to do it asap since it affects end users. > Sounds like a great idea. > > > Ram > > On 4/19/15, 11:13 PM, "IT CTO" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi, > >I read the thread about the new Tajo interpreter and the thread about > >Apache Ignite, and while browsing through the code of the Hive interpreter > >I realized that for all of the JDBC based interpreters the implementation > >should be very much the same. > > > >Should we implement a generic JDBC interpreter with properties in the > >interpreter page to set the driver name as well as the url, user and > >password? > > > >One thing that I don't know how to solve is the ability to use two > >difference JDBC interpreters together but I am not sure if that needed. > > > >Any feedback is appreciated... > >Eran >
