I think that we can have the interpreters add in the build system using compilation parameters (e.g. same as the list in the zeppelin-env.xml that way the basic build builds only the core interpreters and the user can easily interperters to the build process. With regard to a release, this can be just as adding the jar and the config or just the jar with auto-discovery Eran
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:40 PM DuyHai Doan <[email protected]> wrote: > If we want to make the intepreters system modular to decouple souce code, > the process of activating an interpreter should be flexible and easy to > use. > > Asking end-users to make a custom build is not a viable strategy. Recently > I've seen some people trying to make a custom build of Zeppelin and facing > a lot of issues (incorrect Maven version, no Bower installed, incorrect > repository policies settings for Maven etc ...) > > Ideally, activating an interpreter should be as simple as dropping a jar > into the lib directory > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 what tog says > > > > > > > > > > From: tog > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 12:22 AM > > > > Subject: Interpreter with no test. > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > This seems to be a recurrent topic ;-) > > > > > > It has to be decided what are the core interpreters the Zeppelin want to > > > > support - then I would believe you can have a wiki/webpage dedicated to > > > > listing all interpreters that are known to be working with Zeppelin. You > > > > may even consider having recommended plugins and/or ranking in case 2 > > > > plugins are doing the same job. Grails (but it is probably not the only > > > > one) is implementing this (see https://grails.org/plugins/) > > > > > > In order to keep Zeppelin low in term of footprint - the core commiters > can > > > > even decide to support some of those plugins (shell for example) > > > > At one end of the spectrum you could imagine Zeppelin without any > > > > interpreters and at the other end Zeppelin with all known plugins - the > > > > truth is probably in the middle. > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Anthony Corbacho < > [email protected] > > > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > IT CTO is right, right now, zeppelin merge every interpreter in the > code > > > > > base and its mean that we (committer) have to take care of build > falling > > or > > > > > questions for those interpreters. and personally i have no experience > in > > > > > presto, cassandra etcetc. > > > > > > > > > > I think, It can be interesting to detach interpreters from zeppelin > code > > > > > base and create a sortof plug'n'play module where the users can plug > the > > > > > interpreter he wants to use. > > > > > > > > > > With this approach, we can keep zeppelin code base smaller (we provide > > the > > > > > core + maybe some interpreters (spark, md, shell) as default). and the > > > > > community can build and manage other interpreters (i assume if they > build > > > > > it they have experiences and probably can answer questions). > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:34 PM, IT CTO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the question is what\who is going to fix issues in these > > > > > > Interpreters if something fails? > > > > > > I am guessing that if one uses these interpreters and approach the > > > > > > community with questions then we might not have the right support for > > > > > him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:04 AM moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There're some open pullrequests with complete interpreter > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > but no test (eg. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/110 > > > > > , > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/68). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I'm feeling not safe having code without test, but at > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > time, keeping these great contributions unmerged sounds not cool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to hear opinions about merging them with some mark such as > > > > > > 'beta' > > > > > > > or 'untested', and create issue for adding test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > moon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PGP KeyID: 2048R/EA31CFC9 subkeys.pgp.net > > >
