Re: How to remove uglify operation from zeppelin-web

[Corneau Damien]

This is happening in the grunt.js

But why would you want to remove it? This is a basic production build rule.
On Jun 17, 2016 22:27, "Vikash Kumar"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> How to remove uglify operation from zeppelin-web that I can remove the
> functionality of compression.
>
>
>
> *Thanks & Regards*
>
> *Vikash Kumar*
>

Re: Github Integration

[Benjamin Kim]

I will try this. Do you have any information on how to do the checkpoints? Is 
there any additional setups?

Thanks,
Ben

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Khalid Huseynov  wrote:
> 
> As it was mentioned, existing "git" repository is local and setup is 
> described here 
> .
>  
> Once setup, you can also do checkpoints (commits) from Zeppelin version 
> control menu with your commit message.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Jeff Steinmetz  > wrote:
> I believe it actually uses a local “git” repository, not necessarily “github”
> If you want it to sync to origin (stash), you could set up a `git push` cron 
> job on a schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/9/16, 8:40 AM, "Benjamin Kim"  > wrote:
> 
> >I heard that Zeppelin 0.6.0 is able to use its local notebook directory as a 
> >Github repo. Does anyone know of a way to have it work (workaround) with our 
> >company’s Github (Stash) repo server?
> >
> >Any advice would be welcome.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Ben
> 
> 

Re: Zeppelin Integration with Livy Server

[Felix Cheung]

How about a export transform feature that can take notebook content and convert 
it to a different form that can be submitted to Livy?

That could be useful for something like export to code (.py, .scala) or export 
to PDF?





On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:35 PM -0700, "Jeff Zhang" 
mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Yeah, I don't think zeppelin has the capability to create artifact for you. But 
if zepplein has such feature, you can of course reuse the code in interactive 
session and submit it as batch session to livy.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:33 PM, kishore 
mailto:vkishore...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Our thought is to use the Zeppelin to create the algorithms leveraging the
interactive data analysis and eventually deploy the algorithm in the
production environment

In that process after the algorithm is created and published. we can
eventually create job artifact and post the artifact to the rest api (using
either spark job server or livy server) and get the algorithm deployed into
the spark production cluster and run it in a scheduled interval. For
creating the job artifact may be the Zeppelin may not have out of the box we
thought of extending the capability to publish to a repository.

Let me know if you have any suggestions on how we can get the notebook
created during the interactive analysis to eventually get deployed in
production environment.

Thanks
Kishore



--
View this message in context: 
http://apache-zeppelin-users-incubating-mailing-list.75479.x6.nabble.com/Zeppelin-Integration-with-Livy-Server-tp3272p3292.html
Sent from the Apache Zeppelin Users (incubating) mailing list mailing list 
archive at Nabble.com.



--
Best Regards

Jeff Zhang

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Mohit Jaggi]

sure…that is possible. one can also make a build from source and customize as 
needed. but not having to do that makes things easier. i do believe that for 
the vast majority of cases a minimal build with spark (and possibly other small 
items like shell, jdbc, python) will be quite valuable, imho.
is there a lot of overhead involved in having multiple binaries available? i am 
happy to volunteer some time to help with this if needed.

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:45 PM, moon soo Lee  wrote:
> 
> In case of no internet access, how about
> 
> a. download 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' and run 'bin/install-interpreter.sh', and 
> then copy the package to production env.
> b. download 'zeppelin-bin-all' and copy the package to production env.
> 
> ?
> 
> Thanks,
> moon
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM Mohit Jaggi  > wrote:
> Many production environments have no internet access. A script like  this can 
> be useful to some but it should not replace the proposed min binary.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:20 PM, moon soo Lee  > wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this discussion.
>> it's great idea minimize binary package size.
>> 
>> Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to 'zeppelin-bin-min', 
>> which is not?
>> 
>> One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make 
>> 'zeppelin-bin-netinst'.
>> We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' and the 
>> script will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven 
>> repository and store under /interpreter dir. By leveraging 
>> DependencyResolver[1], i think we can make this feature in couple of hours.
>> 
>> Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it requires 
>> some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not available 
>> on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all other 
>> interpreters can be installed in the simple way.
>> 
>> Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and 
>> still gives easy way to install all the interpreters.
>> Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have dynamic 
>> interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package.
>> 
>> what do you think?
>> 
>> [1] 
>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java
>>  
>> 
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee > > wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate I 
>> want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>> 
>> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which 
>> includes all interpreters.
>> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size 
>> will be quite big(~600MB).
>> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>> 
>> I am thinking about putting spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc, 
>> shell, markdown, angular in minimized package.
>> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of 
>> them are ok to be excluded?
>> 
>> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 but 
>> also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized 
>> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are 
>> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter 
>> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mina
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>>  
>> 
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908 
>> 

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Hyung Sung Shim]

I think making the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' is greate idea and more make
sense than voting which interpreter should be included to zeppelin-bin-min.


2016-06-18 1:15 GMT+09:00 moon soo Lee :

> In case of no internet access, how about
>
> a. download 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' and run 'bin/install-interpreter.sh',
> and then copy the package to production env.
> b. download 'zeppelin-bin-all' and copy the package to production env.
>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM Mohit Jaggi  wrote:
>
>> Many production environments have no internet access. A script like  this
>> can be useful to some but it should not replace the proposed min binary.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:20 PM, moon soo Lee  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this discussion.
>> it's great idea minimize binary package size.
>>
>> Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to
>> 'zeppelin-bin-min', which is not?
>>
>> One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make
>> 'zeppelin-bin-netinst'.
>> We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' and
>> the script will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven
>> repository and store under /interpreter dir. By leveraging 
>> DependencyResolver[1],
>> i think we can make this feature in couple of hours.
>>
>> Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it
>> requires some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not
>> available on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all
>> other interpreters can be installed in the simple way.
>>
>> Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and
>> still gives easy way to install all the interpreters.
>> Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have
>> dynamic interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package.
>>
>> what do you think?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release
>>> candidate I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>>>
>>> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
>>> includes all interpreters.
>>> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package
>>> size will be quite big(~600MB).
>>> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>>>
>>> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
>>> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
>>> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
>>> them are ok to be excluded?
>>>
>>> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
>>> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
>>> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
>>> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
>>> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mina
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>>>
>>

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Cameron McBride]

This plan sounds great of having a script that can install individual
available interpreters. It sounds reasonable to always ship with a spark
version for now for lack of complexity in installing that.

The original list of min interpreters seems good, too. The generic jdbc
interpreter handles a lot of cases (as far as I understand, PostgreSQL
interpreter is actually already a generic jdbc one).

Anyhow, my two cents as a new user.

Cameron


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:50 AM, moon soo Lee  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for bringing this discussion.
> it's great idea minimize binary package size.
>
> Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to
> 'zeppelin-bin-min', which is not?
>
> One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make
> 'zeppelin-bin-netinst'.
> We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' and
> the script will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven
> repository and store under /interpreter dir. By leveraging 
> DependencyResolver[1],
> i think we can make this feature in couple of hours.
>
> Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it
> requires some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not
> available on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all
> other interpreters can be installed in the simple way.
>
> Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and
> still gives easy way to install all the interpreters.
> Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have
> dynamic interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package.
>
> what do you think?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee  wrote:
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release
>> candidate I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>>
>> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
>> includes all interpreters.
>> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package
>> size will be quite big(~600MB).
>> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>>
>> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
>> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
>> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
>> them are ok to be excluded?
>>
>> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
>> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
>> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
>> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
>> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mina
>>
>> [1]
>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>>
>

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[moon soo Lee]

In case of no internet access, how about

a. download 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' and run 'bin/install-interpreter.sh',
and then copy the package to production env.
b. download 'zeppelin-bin-all' and copy the package to production env.

?

Thanks,
moon


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM Mohit Jaggi  wrote:

> Many production environments have no internet access. A script like  this
> can be useful to some but it should not replace the proposed min binary.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:20 PM, moon soo Lee  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for bringing this discussion.
> it's great idea minimize binary package size.
>
> Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to
> 'zeppelin-bin-min', which is not?
>
> One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make
> 'zeppelin-bin-netinst'.
> We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' and
> the script will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven
> repository and store under /interpreter dir. By leveraging 
> DependencyResolver[1],
> i think we can make this feature in couple of hours.
>
> Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it
> requires some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not
> available on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all
> other interpreters can be installed in the simple way.
>
> Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and
> still gives easy way to install all the interpreters.
> Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have
> dynamic interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package.
>
> what do you think?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee  wrote:
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release
>> candidate I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>>
>> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
>> includes all interpreters.
>> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package
>> size will be quite big(~600MB).
>> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>>
>> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
>> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
>> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
>> them are ok to be excluded?
>>
>> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
>> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
>> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
>> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
>> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mina
>>
>> [1]
>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>>
>

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Mohit Jaggi]

Many production environments have no internet access. A script like  this can 
be useful to some but it should not replace the proposed min binary.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 9:20 PM, moon soo Lee  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for bringing this discussion.
> it's great idea minimize binary package size.
> 
> Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to 'zeppelin-bin-min', 
> which is not?
> 
> One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make 
> 'zeppelin-bin-netinst'.
> We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' and the 
> script will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven 
> repository and store under /interpreter dir. By leveraging 
> DependencyResolver[1], i think we can make this feature in couple of hours.
> 
> Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it requires 
> some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not available 
> on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all other 
> interpreters can be installed in the simple way.
> 
> Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and still 
> gives easy way to install all the interpreters.
> Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have dynamic 
> interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package.
> 
> what do you think?
> 
> [1] 
> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee  wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate I 
>> want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>> 
>> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which 
>> includes all interpreters.
>> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size 
>> will be quite big(~600MB).
>> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>> 
>> I am thinking about putting spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc, 
>> shell, markdown, angular in minimized package.
>> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of 
>> them are ok to be excluded?
>> 
>> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 but 
>> also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized 
>> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are 
>> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter 
>> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mina
>> 
>> [1] 
>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[moon soo Lee]

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this discussion.
it's great idea minimize binary package size.

Can we set a policy to decide which interpreter goes to 'zeppelin-bin-min',
which is not?

One alternative is, instead of making 'zeppelin-bin-min', we can make
'zeppelin-bin-netinst'.
We can provide a shell script such as, 'bin/install-interpreter.sh'
and the script
will download interpreters and their dependencies from maven repository and
store under /interpreter dir. By leveraging DependencyResolver[1], i think
we can make this feature in couple of hours.

Only spark interpreter can not be installed in simple way, while it
requires some python and R packages under /interpreter dir and they're not
available on maven repository, so it'll need special treatment, but all
other interpreters can be installed in the simple way.

Then, 'zeppelin-bin-netinst' version can have minimal package size, and
still gives easy way to install all the interpreters.
Also 'bin/install-interpreter.sh' will still useful even if we have dynamic
interpreter loading feature [2], to build offline package.

what do you think?

[1]
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-interpreter/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/dep/DependencyResolver.java
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee  wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate
> I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>
> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
> includes all interpreters.
> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size
> will be quite big(~600MB).
> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>
> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
> them are ok to be excluded?
>
> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>
> Thanks,
> Mina
>
> [1]
> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Jongyoul Lee]

Hi,

You can use Phoenix via JdbcInterpreter with same function. JdbcInterpreter
supports all kind of JDBC-like connection. I'll update JDBC document with
example.

Hope this help,
Jongyoul Lee

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Vikash Kumar 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Our company is also working with Spark and Phoenix. So that will be good
> if you are adding Phoenix interpreter in min binary release.
>
>
>
> *Thanks & Regards*
>
>
>
> *Vikash Kumar*
>
> Software Engineer
>
> Resilinc – India Center of Excellence | http://www.resilinc.com/
>
> Mobile: +91-7276111812
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] 
>
> [image: cid:image002.jpg@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
>   [image:
> cid:image003.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]   [image:
> cid:image004.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
>   [image:
> cid:image005.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* mina lee [mailto:mina...@apache.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2016 1:32 PM
> *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org
> *Subject:* Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package
>
>
>
> Hi all!
>
>
>
> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate
> I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>
>
>
> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
> includes all interpreters.
>
> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size
> will be quite big(~600MB).
>
> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>
>
>
> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
>
> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
> them are ok to be excluded?
>
>
>
> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mina
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>
> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>



-- 
이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
http://madeng.net

RE: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Vikash Kumar]

Hi,
Our company is also working with Spark and Phoenix. So that will be good if you 
are adding Phoenix interpreter in min binary release.

Thanks & Regards

Vikash Kumar
Software Engineer
Resilinc – India Center of Excellence | http://www.resilinc.com/
Mobile: +91-7276111812
[cid:image001.jpg@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
[cid:image002.jpg@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
  [cid:image003.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]    
[cid:image004.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] 
   
[cid:image005.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] 


From: mina lee [mailto:mina...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 1:32 PM
To: users@zeppelin.apache.org
Subject: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

Hi all!

Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate I 
want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.

For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which includes 
all interpreters.
The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size will 
be quite big(~600MB).
So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
  - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
  - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)

I am thinking about putting spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc, shell, 
markdown, angular in minimized package.
Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of them 
are ok to be excluded?

Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 but 
also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized package 
from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are not included 
in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter feature [1] which is 
in progress under [2].

Thanks,
Mina

[1] 
http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
[2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908

Re: Rest API

[kevin giroux]

Hi moon soo Lee,

I add the an issues about that on JIRA =>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-1029

i try to use  websocket also for changing the configuration as you said
yesterday,

but my call is always in "PENDING"

Here there is my websocket call, on Angular2 with a Angular2-websocket
Module.
this.ws.connect(true);
 this.ws.getDataStream();
var config = {
  colWidth: 12,
  editorHide: false,
  editorMode: "ace/mode/sql",
  enabled: true,
  graph: {
groups: [],
height: 300,
keys: [0],
mode: "lineChart",
optionOpen: true,
scatter: {
   xAxis :{
 aggr: "sum",
 index: 0,
 name: "id",
   },
   yAxis: {
 aggr: "sum",
 index: 1,
 name: "codesource",
  }
}
  },
  values: [],
  lineNumbers: true,
  tableHide: false,
  title: true
 }
this.ws.send(
  {
op: 'COMMIT_PARAGRAPH',
  data: {
id: this.paragraph.id,
title : this.paragraph.title,
paragraph: this.paragraph.text,
config: config
  }
}
);

this.ws.send({
  op: 'PARAGRAPH',
  data: {
id: this.paragraph.id,
title : this.paragraph.title,
paragraph: this.paragraph,
config: config
  }
}
  );


Can you tell me if there is something missing beforce using websocket ?
authentification ? permission ?

Sincerely,


Le jeu. 16 juin 2016 à 16:54, moon soo Lee  a écrit :

> Yes, it's reasonable to have RestAPI for change 'config'.
> Please feel free to file a issue. Code contribution would be more than
> welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM kevin giroux 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank again for you reply.
>>
>> Do you know if it is a possible improvement for the Web Side and Rest API
>> ? I think it will could be usefull to allowed user to create Notebook and
>> paragraph with this system.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>> Le jeu. 16 juin 2016 à 07:07, moon soo Lee  a écrit :
>>
>>> Websocket server in the other hands, take care of 'config', as well as
>>> text and title.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/branch-0.5.6/zeppelin-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/socket/NotebookServer.java#L464
>>>
>>> If ZeppelinServer is running on port 8080 for example websocket URI will
>>> be, ws://localhost:8080/ws.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> moon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:00 PM kevin giroux 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thank about you response,

 But how does it work for setting the configuration ?

 I saw on the web page, you are using websocket. What kind of URI this
 websocket call for changing the paragraph config ?

 Sincerely,

 Le mer. 15 juin 2016 à 22:04, moon soo Lee  a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I think 0.5.6 rest api (and current, too) does not take 'config'.
>
> Here's how create a paragraph rest api is implemented.
>
> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/branch-0.5.6/zeppelin-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/rest/NotebookRestApi.java#L248
>
> And this is the message format for create a paragraph rest api.
>
> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/branch-0.5.6/zeppelin-server/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/rest/message/NewParagraphRequest.java
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:48 AM kevin giroux <
> giroux.kevin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Zeppelin Dev
>>
>> I have a question about all the Rest API you provide in the version
>> 0.5.6
>>
>> I try to create a paragraph with the Rest api (
>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.5.6-incubating/rest-api/rest-notebook.html
>> )
>>
>> But the issues (or not), is, when i try to insert in my paragraph,
>> with the following object.
>>
>>  {"title":"Hello
>> worl","text":"%psql.sql","config":{"graph":{"mode":"pieChart"},"optionOpen":false},"index":0,"id":"20160615-163330_1387735696"}
>>
>> my config is not saved ...
>>
>> Can you provide to me the full structure that i need to send to set
>> the configuration in my rest API with you rest API.
>>
>> Sincerely in advance,
>>
>>
>>

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Benjamin Kim]

Hi,

Our company’s use is spark, phoenix, jdbc/psql. So, if you make different 
packages, I would need the full one. In addition, for the minimized one, would 
there be a way to pick and choose interpreters to add/plug in?

Thanks,
Ben

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:02 AM, mina lee  wrote:
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate I 
> want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
> 
> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which 
> includes all interpreters.
> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size 
> will be quite big(~600MB).
> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
> 
> I am thinking about putting spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc, shell, 
> markdown, angular in minimized package.
> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of them 
> are ok to be excluded?
> 
> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 but 
> also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized 
> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are 
> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter 
> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
> 
> Thanks,
> Mina
> 
> [1] 
> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>  
> 
> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908 
> 

How to remove uglify operation from zeppelin-web

[Vikash Kumar]

Hi all,
How to remove uglify operation from zeppelin-web that I can remove the 
functionality of compression.

Thanks & Regards
Vikash Kumar

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Jongyoul Lee]

Hello,

Concerning jdbc, you can load drivers dynamically, and JdbcInterpreter
covers all of function of PostgresqlInterpreter.

Hope this help,
JL

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, kevin giroux 
wrote:

> Postgres sql could be usefull. Many society use it.
>
> Le ven. 17 juin 2016 à 10:26, Mohit Jaggi  a écrit :
>
>> Perfect...with jdbc do you need to package several drivers?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:32 PM, mina lee  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release
>> candidate I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>>
>> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
>> includes all interpreters.
>> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package
>> size will be quite big(~600MB).
>> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>>
>> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
>> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
>> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
>> them are ok to be excluded?
>>
>> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
>> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
>> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
>> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
>> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mina
>>
>> [1]
>> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>>
>>


-- 
이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
http://madeng.net

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[kevin giroux]

Postgres sql could be usefull. Many society use it.

Le ven. 17 juin 2016 à 10:26, Mohit Jaggi  a écrit :

> Perfect...with jdbc do you need to package several drivers?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:32 PM, mina lee  wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate
> I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
>
> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
> includes all interpreters.
> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size
> will be quite big(~600MB).
> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
>
> I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
> shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
> them are ok to be excluded?
>
> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0
> but also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
>
> Thanks,
> Mina
>
> [1]
> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908
>
>

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Mohit Jaggi]

Perfect...with jdbc do you need to package several drivers?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:32 PM, mina lee  wrote:
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate I 
> want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.
> 
> For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which 
> includes all interpreters.
> The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size 
> will be quite big(~600MB).
> So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
>   - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)
> 
> I am thinking about putting spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc, shell, 
> markdown, angular in minimized package.
> Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of them 
> are ok to be excluded?
> 
> Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 but 
> also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized 
> package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are 
> not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter 
> feature [1] which is in progress under [2].
> 
> Thanks,
> Mina
> 
> [1] 
> http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
> [2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908

Re: Cannot import a note

[Sang-Min Yoon]

Ah.. I clicked the right arrow button, and it shows 'Create Service Desk
Request' :(

I will create an issue for this problem.

2016-06-17 17:16 GMT+09:00 Ahyoung Ryu :

> Hi Sang-Min,
>
> Regarding JIRA issue creation button, did you login with your account?
> Once you login to JIRA, then you can easily find *Create *red button at
> the middle of top.
>
> Thanks,
> Ahyoung
>
> 2016년 6월 17일 (금) 오전 1:10, Sang-Min Yoon 님이 작성:
>
>> Import fails with following exception
>>
>>
>>
>>> com.google.gson.JsonSyntaxException: 2016-06-16T04:39:11+
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.deserializeToDate(DateTypeAdapter.java:81)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.read(DateTypeAdapter.java:66)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.read(DateTypeAdapter.java:41)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$1.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:93)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:172)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.TypeAdapterRuntimeTypeWrapper.read(TypeAdapterRuntimeTypeWrapper.java:40)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.CollectionTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(CollectionTypeAdapterFactory.java:81)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.CollectionTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(CollectionTypeAdapterFactory.java:60)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$1.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:93)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:172)
>>> at com.google.gson.Gson.fromJson(Gson.java:791)
>>> at
>>> org.apache.zeppelin.notebook.Notebook.importNote(Notebook.java:199)
>>> at
>>> org.apache.zeppelin.socket.NotebookServer.importNote(NotebookServer.java:650)
>>> Caused by: java.text.ParseException: Unparseable date:
>>> "2016-06-16T04:39:11+"
>>> at java.text.DateFormat.parse(DateFormat.java:366)
>>> at
>>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.deserializeToDate(DateTypeAdapter.java:79)
>>>
>>>
>> It seems date format is the cause.
>>
>> Dates in exported json from release version are like "Apr 19, 2016
>> 12:04:58 PM",
>> but dates in exported json from snapshot version are like
>> "2016-06-15T14:39:04+".
>>
>> I found a similar issue (
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-905 ) and PR (
>> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/933 ),
>> but it seems its focus is different.
>>
>>
>> PS)
>> I try to open an issue for this problem, but I cannot find an issue
>> creation button. Is it a problem of Apache JIRA or me?
>>
>

Re: Cannot import a note

[Ahyoung Ryu]

Hi Sang-Min,

Regarding JIRA issue creation button, did you login with your account?
Once you login to JIRA, then you can easily find *Create *red button at the
middle of top.

Thanks,
Ahyoung

2016년 6월 17일 (금) 오전 1:10, Sang-Min Yoon 님이 작성:

> Import fails with following exception
>
>
>
>> com.google.gson.JsonSyntaxException: 2016-06-16T04:39:11+
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.deserializeToDate(DateTypeAdapter.java:81)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.read(DateTypeAdapter.java:66)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.read(DateTypeAdapter.java:41)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$1.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:93)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:172)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.TypeAdapterRuntimeTypeWrapper.read(TypeAdapterRuntimeTypeWrapper.java:40)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.CollectionTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(CollectionTypeAdapterFactory.java:81)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.CollectionTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(CollectionTypeAdapterFactory.java:60)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$1.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:93)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:172)
>> at com.google.gson.Gson.fromJson(Gson.java:791)
>> at
>> org.apache.zeppelin.notebook.Notebook.importNote(Notebook.java:199)
>> at
>> org.apache.zeppelin.socket.NotebookServer.importNote(NotebookServer.java:650)
>> Caused by: java.text.ParseException: Unparseable date:
>> "2016-06-16T04:39:11+"
>> at java.text.DateFormat.parse(DateFormat.java:366)
>> at
>> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.deserializeToDate(DateTypeAdapter.java:79)
>>
>>
> It seems date format is the cause.
>
> Dates in exported json from release version are like "Apr 19, 2016
> 12:04:58 PM",
> but dates in exported json from snapshot version are like
> "2016-06-15T14:39:04+".
>
> I found a similar issue (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-905 ) and PR (
> https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/933 ),
> but it seems its focus is different.
>
>
> PS)
> I try to open an issue for this problem, but I cannot find an issue
> creation button. Is it a problem of Apache JIRA or me?
>

Re: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards

[Corneau Damien]

That's why I was talking about easy way VS more complicated changes.
The idea behind the easy way was to bypass the server save and send the
result to the view directly.

Honestly, I'm not knowledgeable enough to give an estimation of how hard
caching of previous results, or other methods would be.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:04 PM, ashish rawat  wrote:

> Yes, that looks like a good way to do it. Also, you mentioned an important
> point that user would have to stay on the page for query to finish and the
> results would be flushed when moving to a new page. This is typically the
> case in dashboard that queries have very small response times and users
> wait for the results. But still, as per my understanding, dashboards do
> retain the last viewed data (through browser cache) and also allow people
> to navigate to some other screen while the data is getting loaded.
>
> Is there any limitation in Zeppelin, which would not let browser cache the
> view for the current user session? Is it because Zeppelin web always asks
> for a fresh copy of the notebook from server, whenever user switches
> notebooks? Perhaps, keeping the changed state of the notebook in the user
> session at the server side might resolve this?
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
> On Jun 17, 2016 1:09 PM, "Corneau Damien"  wrote:
>
> The easy way to do that would be:
> Have an option on the notebook (automatic-save vs manual save), manual
> save could be set as an Admin command only, and once activated any change
> on the notebook wouldn't be propagated to others or saved in the note.json
>
> One drawback however would be that you would be forced to stay on the page
> until the query is finished, and the modification would be flushed once you
> visit a different page.
>
> Otherwise, it would probably need some heavy changes to the Notebook Repo
> and saving mechanism etc...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, ashish rawat  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Vincent. I haven't explore git storage much, but it's important
>> for us that the cost the maintaining a changing notebook and a changing
>> user list shouldn't be high. If we have 20 dashboard users and there are
>> minor changes in dashboard functionality every two weeks, then there should
>> not be a need to make changes to all the 20 copies manually. Apart from
>> taking time, this would invariably result in some human error and
>> variations in copies of the same notebook. Moreover maintaining user
>> permissions, also become complex with so many copies.
>>
>> The overall user management and authorization may become non-trivial to
>> manage if we start creating copies for what should be just one notebook.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashish
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:37 AM, vincent gromakowski <
>> vincent.gromakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Isnt it acheivable via git repository ? A kind of git clone to get an
>>> indépendant copy of the notebook?
>>> Le 17 juin 2016 4:18 AM, "Corneau Damien"  a
>>> écrit :
>>>
 It is simple Read/Write
 Some people can edit, some people can see.

 By essence, if the view is different from each user, then it is not the
 same notebook anymore.
 Being able to have a different results for each user saved somewhere so
 that they can read it, seems like a big overhead.

 On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:35 AM, ashish rawat 
 wrote:

> Hi Damien,
>
> Does the read mode work as I described above i.e. multiple users can
> work with selectors and input boxes of the same notebook and view 
> different
> outputs?
> My assumption is that read will only allow users to just view the
> notebook in report mode and not interact with it, perhaps an
> interactive-read is required for a typical dashboard use case.
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Corneau Damien 
> wrote:
>
>> Using Authentication in Zeppelin, you can set Read/Write rules to
>> Notebooks
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29 PM, ashish rawat 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I thought the same, but this is quite unmanageable for a
>>> changing dashboard and changing user list.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, a clean solution could be to introduce a read mode, where
>>> the notebook is maintained per user session and changes are only kept in
>>> memory and not persisted.
>>>
>>> If there are no solutions out-of-the-box, I would try this out.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ashish
>>> On Jun 16, 2016 4:40 PM, "Darren Govoni" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess the workaround is to copy the notebook for each user.
>>> Simplest solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original message 
>>> From: ashish rawat 
>>> Date: 06/16/2016 6:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: us...@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>

Cannot import a note

[Sang-Min Yoon]

Import fails with following exception



> com.google.gson.JsonSyntaxException: 2016-06-16T04:39:11+
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.deserializeToDate(DateTypeAdapter.java:81)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.read(DateTypeAdapter.java:66)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.read(DateTypeAdapter.java:41)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$1.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:93)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:172)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.TypeAdapterRuntimeTypeWrapper.read(TypeAdapterRuntimeTypeWrapper.java:40)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.CollectionTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(CollectionTypeAdapterFactory.java:81)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.CollectionTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(CollectionTypeAdapterFactory.java:60)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$1.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:93)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory$Adapter.read(ReflectiveTypeAdapterFactory.java:172)
> at com.google.gson.Gson.fromJson(Gson.java:791)
> at
> org.apache.zeppelin.notebook.Notebook.importNote(Notebook.java:199)
> at
> org.apache.zeppelin.socket.NotebookServer.importNote(NotebookServer.java:650)
> Caused by: java.text.ParseException: Unparseable date:
> "2016-06-16T04:39:11+"
> at java.text.DateFormat.parse(DateFormat.java:366)
> at
> com.google.gson.internal.bind.DateTypeAdapter.deserializeToDate(DateTypeAdapter.java:79)
>
>
It seems date format is the cause.

Dates in exported json from release version are like "Apr 19, 2016 12:04:58
PM",
but dates in exported json from snapshot version are like
"2016-06-15T14:39:04+".

I found a similar issue ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-905
) and PR ( https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/933 ),
but it seems its focus is different.


PS)
I try to open an issue for this problem, but I cannot find an issue
creation button. Is it a problem of Apache JIRA or me?

Re: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards

[ashish rawat]

Yes, that looks like a good way to do it. Also, you mentioned an important
point that user would have to stay on the page for query to finish and the
results would be flushed when moving to a new page. This is typically the
case in dashboard that queries have very small response times and users
wait for the results. But still, as per my understanding, dashboards do
retain the last viewed data (through browser cache) and also allow people
to navigate to some other screen while the data is getting loaded.

Is there any limitation in Zeppelin, which would not let browser cache the
view for the current user session? Is it because Zeppelin web always asks
for a fresh copy of the notebook from server, whenever user switches
notebooks? Perhaps, keeping the changed state of the notebook in the user
session at the server side might resolve this?

Regards,
Ashish
On Jun 17, 2016 1:09 PM, "Corneau Damien"  wrote:

The easy way to do that would be:
Have an option on the notebook (automatic-save vs manual save), manual save
could be set as an Admin command only, and once activated any change on the
notebook wouldn't be propagated to others or saved in the note.json

One drawback however would be that you would be forced to stay on the page
until the query is finished, and the modification would be flushed once you
visit a different page.

Otherwise, it would probably need some heavy changes to the Notebook Repo
and saving mechanism etc...



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, ashish rawat  wrote:

> Thanks Vincent. I haven't explore git storage much, but it's important for
> us that the cost the maintaining a changing notebook and a changing user
> list shouldn't be high. If we have 20 dashboard users and there are minor
> changes in dashboard functionality every two weeks, then there should not
> be a need to make changes to all the 20 copies manually. Apart from taking
> time, this would invariably result in some human error and variations in
> copies of the same notebook. Moreover maintaining user permissions, also
> become complex with so many copies.
>
> The overall user management and authorization may become non-trivial to
> manage if we start creating copies for what should be just one notebook.
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:37 AM, vincent gromakowski <
> vincent.gromakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isnt it acheivable via git repository ? A kind of git clone to get an
>> indépendant copy of the notebook?
>> Le 17 juin 2016 4:18 AM, "Corneau Damien"  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> It is simple Read/Write
>>> Some people can edit, some people can see.
>>>
>>> By essence, if the view is different from each user, then it is not the
>>> same notebook anymore.
>>> Being able to have a different results for each user saved somewhere so
>>> that they can read it, seems like a big overhead.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:35 AM, ashish rawat 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Damien,

 Does the read mode work as I described above i.e. multiple users can
 work with selectors and input boxes of the same notebook and view different
 outputs?
 My assumption is that read will only allow users to just view the
 notebook in report mode and not interact with it, perhaps an
 interactive-read is required for a typical dashboard use case.

 Regards,
 Ashish

 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Corneau Damien 
 wrote:

> Using Authentication in Zeppelin, you can set Read/Write rules to
> Notebooks
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29 PM, ashish rawat 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I thought the same, but this is quite unmanageable for a
>> changing dashboard and changing user list.
>>
>> Perhaps, a clean solution could be to introduce a read mode, where
>> the notebook is maintained per user session and changes are only kept in
>> memory and not persisted.
>>
>> If there are no solutions out-of-the-box, I would try this out.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashish
>> On Jun 16, 2016 4:40 PM, "Darren Govoni"  wrote:
>>
>> I guess the workaround is to copy the notebook for each user.
>> Simplest solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: ashish rawat 
>> Date: 06/16/2016 6:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: us...@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I believe there has been some work done on multitenancy in Zeppelin
>> through z-manager, but that does not look aligned with a typical 
>> dashboard
>> use case, where once a Dashboard/Notebook gets created, multiple users
>> login and use the dashboard by changing various filters.
>>
>> In case of a Zeppelin notebook, when two users work on the same
>> notebook and change selectors and input boxes, the changes are 
>> immediately
>> visible to any other user who

Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[mina lee]

Hi all!

Zeppelin just started release process. Prior to creating release candidate
I want to ask users' opinion about how you want it to be packaged.

For the last release(0.5.6), we have released one binary package which
includes all interpreters.
The concern with providing one type of binary package is that package size
will be quite big(~600MB).
So I am planning to provide two binary packages:
  - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-all.tgz (includes all interpreters)
  - zeppelin-0.6.0-bin-min.tgz (includes only most used interpreters)

I am thinking about putting *spark(pyspark, sparkr, sql), python, jdbc,
shell, markdown, angular* in minimized package.
Could you give your opinion on whether these sets are enough, or some of
them are ok to be excluded?

Community's opinion will be helpful to make decision not only for 0.6.0 but
also for 0.7.0 release since we are planning to provide only minimized
package from 0.7.0 release. From the 0.7.0 version, interpreters those are
not included in binary package will be able to use dynamic interpreter
feature [1] which is in progress under [2].

Thanks,
Mina

[1]
http://zeppelin.apache.org/docs/0.6.0-SNAPSHOT/manual/dynamicinterpreterload.html
[2] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/908

Re: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards

[Corneau Damien]

The easy way to do that would be:
Have an option on the notebook (automatic-save vs manual save), manual save
could be set as an Admin command only, and once activated any change on the
notebook wouldn't be propagated to others or saved in the note.json

One drawback however would be that you would be forced to stay on the page
until the query is finished, and the modification would be flushed once you
visit a different page.

Otherwise, it would probably need some heavy changes to the Notebook Repo
and saving mechanism etc...



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM, ashish rawat  wrote:

> Thanks Vincent. I haven't explore git storage much, but it's important for
> us that the cost the maintaining a changing notebook and a changing user
> list shouldn't be high. If we have 20 dashboard users and there are minor
> changes in dashboard functionality every two weeks, then there should not
> be a need to make changes to all the 20 copies manually. Apart from taking
> time, this would invariably result in some human error and variations in
> copies of the same notebook. Moreover maintaining user permissions, also
> become complex with so many copies.
>
> The overall user management and authorization may become non-trivial to
> manage if we start creating copies for what should be just one notebook.
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:37 AM, vincent gromakowski <
> vincent.gromakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isnt it acheivable via git repository ? A kind of git clone to get an
>> indépendant copy of the notebook?
>> Le 17 juin 2016 4:18 AM, "Corneau Damien"  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> It is simple Read/Write
>>> Some people can edit, some people can see.
>>>
>>> By essence, if the view is different from each user, then it is not the
>>> same notebook anymore.
>>> Being able to have a different results for each user saved somewhere so
>>> that they can read it, seems like a big overhead.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:35 AM, ashish rawat 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Damien,

 Does the read mode work as I described above i.e. multiple users can
 work with selectors and input boxes of the same notebook and view different
 outputs?
 My assumption is that read will only allow users to just view the
 notebook in report mode and not interact with it, perhaps an
 interactive-read is required for a typical dashboard use case.

 Regards,
 Ashish

 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Corneau Damien 
 wrote:

> Using Authentication in Zeppelin, you can set Read/Write rules to
> Notebooks
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29 PM, ashish rawat 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I thought the same, but this is quite unmanageable for a
>> changing dashboard and changing user list.
>>
>> Perhaps, a clean solution could be to introduce a read mode, where
>> the notebook is maintained per user session and changes are only kept in
>> memory and not persisted.
>>
>> If there are no solutions out-of-the-box, I would try this out.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashish
>> On Jun 16, 2016 4:40 PM, "Darren Govoni"  wrote:
>>
>> I guess the workaround is to copy the notebook for each user.
>> Simplest solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: ashish rawat 
>> Date: 06/16/2016 6:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: us...@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I believe there has been some work done on multitenancy in Zeppelin
>> through z-manager, but that does not look aligned with a typical 
>> dashboard
>> use case, where once a Dashboard/Notebook gets created, multiple users
>> login and use the dashboard by changing various filters.
>>
>> In case of a Zeppelin notebook, when two users work on the same
>> notebook and change selectors and input boxes, the changes are 
>> immediately
>> visible to any other user who is using the same notebook. This creates
>> problem in paralleling analysing data using the same notebook.
>>
>> Is there any workaround to this issue, with core zeppelin or
>> z-manager?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashish
>>
>>
>

>>>
>

Re: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards

[ashish rawat]

Thanks Vincent. I haven't explore git storage much, but it's important for
us that the cost the maintaining a changing notebook and a changing user
list shouldn't be high. If we have 20 dashboard users and there are minor
changes in dashboard functionality every two weeks, then there should not
be a need to make changes to all the 20 copies manually. Apart from taking
time, this would invariably result in some human error and variations in
copies of the same notebook. Moreover maintaining user permissions, also
become complex with so many copies.

The overall user management and authorization may become non-trivial to
manage if we start creating copies for what should be just one notebook.

Regards,
Ashish

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:37 AM, vincent gromakowski <
vincent.gromakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Isnt it acheivable via git repository ? A kind of git clone to get an
> indépendant copy of the notebook?
> Le 17 juin 2016 4:18 AM, "Corneau Damien"  a écrit :
>
>> It is simple Read/Write
>> Some people can edit, some people can see.
>>
>> By essence, if the view is different from each user, then it is not the
>> same notebook anymore.
>> Being able to have a different results for each user saved somewhere so
>> that they can read it, seems like a big overhead.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:35 AM, ashish rawat 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Damien,
>>>
>>> Does the read mode work as I described above i.e. multiple users can
>>> work with selectors and input boxes of the same notebook and view different
>>> outputs?
>>> My assumption is that read will only allow users to just view the
>>> notebook in report mode and not interact with it, perhaps an
>>> interactive-read is required for a typical dashboard use case.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ashish
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Corneau Damien 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Using Authentication in Zeppelin, you can set Read/Write rules to
 Notebooks

 On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29 PM, ashish rawat 
 wrote:

> Yeah, I thought the same, but this is quite unmanageable for a
> changing dashboard and changing user list.
>
> Perhaps, a clean solution could be to introduce a read mode, where the
> notebook is maintained per user session and changes are only kept in 
> memory
> and not persisted.
>
> If there are no solutions out-of-the-box, I would try this out.
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
> On Jun 16, 2016 4:40 PM, "Darren Govoni"  wrote:
>
> I guess the workaround is to copy the notebook for each user. Simplest
> solution.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: ashish rawat 
> Date: 06/16/2016 6:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: us...@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards
>
> Hi All,
>
> I believe there has been some work done on multitenancy in Zeppelin
> through z-manager, but that does not look aligned with a typical dashboard
> use case, where once a Dashboard/Notebook gets created, multiple users
> login and use the dashboard by changing various filters.
>
> In case of a Zeppelin notebook, when two users work on the same
> notebook and change selectors and input boxes, the changes are immediately
> visible to any other user who is using the same notebook. This creates
> problem in paralleling analysing data using the same notebook.
>
> Is there any workaround to this issue, with core zeppelin or z-manager?
>
> Regards,
> Ashish
>
>

>>>
>>

Re: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards

[ashish rawat]

For Zeppelin, this is true that if the view is different from each user,
then it is not the same notebook anymore. But from a dashboard perspective,
multiple users work on the same dashboard, viewing different data and we
still call it the same dashboard.

Essentially, the difference boils down to the fact that Zeppelin persists
user's selection and output, while a normal dashboard would only keep a
transient state in the user's browser, nothing is persisted at the server.

If we provide a mode where we would not persist user's interaction in
report view to the storage, then I believe we can achieve a standard
dashboard behaviour.

Regards,
Ashish


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Corneau Damien 
wrote:

> It is simple Read/Write
> Some people can edit, some people can see.
>
> By essence, if the view is different from each user, then it is not the
> same notebook anymore.
> Being able to have a different results for each user saved somewhere so
> that they can read it, seems like a big overhead.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:35 AM, ashish rawat  wrote:
>
>> Hi Damien,
>>
>> Does the read mode work as I described above i.e. multiple users can work
>> with selectors and input boxes of the same notebook and view different
>> outputs?
>> My assumption is that read will only allow users to just view the
>> notebook in report mode and not interact with it, perhaps an
>> interactive-read is required for a typical dashboard use case.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ashish
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Corneau Damien 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Using Authentication in Zeppelin, you can set Read/Write rules to
>>> Notebooks
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29 PM, ashish rawat 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, I thought the same, but this is quite unmanageable for a changing
 dashboard and changing user list.

 Perhaps, a clean solution could be to introduce a read mode, where the
 notebook is maintained per user session and changes are only kept in memory
 and not persisted.

 If there are no solutions out-of-the-box, I would try this out.

 Regards,
 Ashish
 On Jun 16, 2016 4:40 PM, "Darren Govoni"  wrote:

 I guess the workaround is to copy the notebook for each user. Simplest
 solution.



 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


  Original message 
 From: ashish rawat 
 Date: 06/16/2016 6:54 AM (GMT-05:00)
 To: us...@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Zeppelin multi-user dashboards

 Hi All,

 I believe there has been some work done on multitenancy in Zeppelin
 through z-manager, but that does not look aligned with a typical dashboard
 use case, where once a Dashboard/Notebook gets created, multiple users
 login and use the dashboard by changing various filters.

 In case of a Zeppelin notebook, when two users work on the same
 notebook and change selectors and input boxes, the changes are immediately
 visible to any other user who is using the same notebook. This creates
 problem in paralleling analysing data using the same notebook.

 Is there any workaround to this issue, with core zeppelin or z-manager?

 Regards,
 Ashish


>>>
>>
>