Sounds good but how about exposing the logical plan layer instead? Wouldn't
that yield the same effect? From python for example you still can construct
a logical plan and give to Pig to execute.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/17 Alan Gates <ga...@yahoo-inc.com>
> > [not commenting on the switch, only on the exposure of AST's] Is that
> > correct?
> Nearly so.
> > So whether we switch parsing technologies or not is not of interest to
> > only the interfaces we expose?
> I would think that switching parsing technologies would encourage creation
> of a better AST interface layer which further my goal of getting to the
> AST's for other purposes. I also think that exposing the AST layer would
> further your goal of switching parser technology by allowing outsiders to
> contribute parsers that you might ultimately like better.
> So I do see a linkage and do support switching.
> +1 to switching parsers (and thus making switching easier)