Thank you Dmitry. Responses inline.
On 4/20/15, 7:09 AM, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <[email protected]> wrote: >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. Zeppelin itself does not mandate what features need to be supported. Providing read-only access is a great start IMO. However, write capabilities might make it convenient to for data scientists who want to clean the data a bit or work with intermediate results. > > >> >> 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. Cool - will open a ticket for this change. > > >> >> >> 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 >>
