Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Alexander Bezzubov]

It sounds as a most flexible way, let's try it for 0.6 release and see if
it addresses all user needs well.

Untill we have GUI for interpreter loading, I feel we also should try our
best to make sure netinst usage is documented well, so users on different
environments (no internet, corporate proxy, etc) all know how to use it.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 15:25 mina lee  wrote:

> Moon, having netinst package for the sake of simplicity and flexibility
> totally makes sense to me.
> If there is no strong objection, I would like to follow your approach for
> 0.6.0 release.
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:23 PM, moon soo Lee  wrote:
>
>> "zeppelin-bin-min" package, I worried about lack of written policy which
>> goes in which does not.
>> Without policy, yes, we can always vote for list of interpreters. But
>> then, we'll need vote everytime we add/remove interpreter, and this
>> sounds not good.
>>
>> Even if it is true that majority of user uses 'spark',
>> other users may ask "zeppelin-bin-cassandra-min",
>> "zeppelin-bin-flink-min" and so on.
>> Once we have 'zeppelin-bin-min' package with 'spark', then there will be
>> no good excuse of not having other *min packages.
>> And we can end up with a lot of binary packages in each release. which is
>> not really optimal.
>>
>> For this reasons, I believe we'll need a written policy based on
>> community consensus to make 'zeppelin-bin-min'.
>> But I think making netinst script will be a lot easier and give more
>> flexibility to users than making written policy for 'zeppelin-bin-min'.
>>
>> Anyway, it's really great to hear volunteer some time to help.
>> Thanks  Mohit Jaggi.
>> Whether we have multiple packages or not, we'll need a lot of help on
>> improving release script [1] and verification of release candidates.
>>
>> Regarding maintainers/contributors of each interpreter(s),
>> Spark community recently removed 'maintainer' role from review process
>> [2] for some reasons.
>> DuyHai Doan, could you give little more details about how your idea
>> different from maintainers of Spark?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> moon
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/dev/create_release.sh
>> [2]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=34835307&originalVersion=61&revisedVersion=66
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:10 AM DuyHai Doan  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for zeppelin-bin-min release package
>>>
>>> What I would suggest is that for a specific package of Zeppelin with XXX
>>> interpreter(s) built-in is that the maintainers/contributors of each
>>> interpreter(s) can help releasing those "custom" builds for the community.
>>> Any thought on this idea ?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation) <
>>> lucas.partri...@ge.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst’ idea too. Hopefully it would be easy
>>>> to configure it to work with a proxy for users behind a corporate firewall.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Lucas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Mohit Jaggi [mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* 17 June 2016 18:06
>>>> *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org
>>>> *Subject:* EXT: Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>&

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[mina lee]

Moon, having netinst package for the sake of simplicity and flexibility
totally makes sense to me.
If there is no strong objection, I would like to follow your approach for
0.6.0 release.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 6:23 PM, moon soo Lee  wrote:

> "zeppelin-bin-min" package, I worried about lack of written policy which
> goes in which does not.
> Without policy, yes, we can always vote for list of interpreters. But
> then, we'll need vote everytime we add/remove interpreter, and this
> sounds not good.
>
> Even if it is true that majority of user uses 'spark',
> other users may ask "zeppelin-bin-cassandra-min", "zeppelin-bin-flink-min"
> and so on.
> Once we have 'zeppelin-bin-min' package with 'spark', then there will be
> no good excuse of not having other *min packages.
> And we can end up with a lot of binary packages in each release. which is
> not really optimal.
>
> For this reasons, I believe we'll need a written policy based on community
> consensus to make 'zeppelin-bin-min'.
> But I think making netinst script will be a lot easier and give more
> flexibility to users than making written policy for 'zeppelin-bin-min'.
>
> Anyway, it's really great to hear volunteer some time to help.
> Thanks  Mohit Jaggi.
> Whether we have multiple packages or not, we'll need a lot of help on
> improving release script [1] and verification of release candidates.
>
> Regarding maintainers/contributors of each interpreter(s),
> Spark community recently removed 'maintainer' role from review process [2]
> for some reasons.
> DuyHai Doan, could you give little more details about how your idea
> different from maintainers of Spark?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/dev/create_release.sh
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=34835307&originalVersion=61&revisedVersion=66
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:10 AM DuyHai Doan  wrote:
>
>> +1 for zeppelin-bin-min release package
>>
>> What I would suggest is that for a specific package of Zeppelin with XXX
>> interpreter(s) built-in is that the maintainers/contributors of each
>> interpreter(s) can help releasing those "custom" builds for the community.
>> Any thought on this idea ?
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation) <
>> lucas.partri...@ge.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst’ idea too. Hopefully it would be easy
>>> to configure it to work with a proxy for users behind a corporate firewall.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Lucas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mohit Jaggi [mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* 17 June 2016 18:06
>>> *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org
>>> *Subject:* EXT: Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[moon soo Lee]

"zeppelin-bin-min" package, I worried about lack of written policy which
goes in which does not.
Without policy, yes, we can always vote for list of interpreters. But
then, we'll
need vote everytime we add/remove interpreter, and this sounds not good.

Even if it is true that majority of user uses 'spark',
other users may ask "zeppelin-bin-cassandra-min", "zeppelin-bin-flink-min"
and so on.
Once we have 'zeppelin-bin-min' package with 'spark', then there will be no
good excuse of not having other *min packages.
And we can end up with a lot of binary packages in each release. which is
not really optimal.

For this reasons, I believe we'll need a written policy based on community
consensus to make 'zeppelin-bin-min'.
But I think making netinst script will be a lot easier and give more
flexibility to users than making written policy for 'zeppelin-bin-min'.

Anyway, it's really great to hear volunteer some time to help.
Thanks  Mohit Jaggi.
Whether we have multiple packages or not, we'll need a lot of help on
improving release script [1] and verification of release candidates.

Regarding maintainers/contributors of each interpreter(s),
Spark community recently removed 'maintainer' role from review process [2]
for some reasons.
DuyHai Doan, could you give little more details about how your idea
different from maintainers of Spark?

Thanks,
moon

[1] https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/dev/create_release.sh
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=34835307&originalVersion=61&revisedVersion=66


On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:10 AM DuyHai Doan  wrote:

> +1 for zeppelin-bin-min release package
>
> What I would suggest is that for a specific package of Zeppelin with XXX
> interpreter(s) built-in is that the maintainers/contributors of each
> interpreter(s) can help releasing those "custom" builds for the community.
> Any thought on this idea ?
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation) <
> lucas.partri...@ge.com> wrote:
>
>> I like the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst’ idea too. Hopefully it would be easy
>> to configure it to work with a proxy for users behind a corporate firewall.
>>
>> Thanks, Lucas.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mohit Jaggi [mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 17 June 2016 18:06
>> *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org
>> *Subject:* EXT: Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 interpr

Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[DuyHai Doan]

+1 for zeppelin-bin-min release package

What I would suggest is that for a specific package of Zeppelin with XXX
interpreter(s) built-in is that the maintainers/contributors of each
interpreter(s) can help releasing those "custom" builds for the community.
Any thought on this idea ?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation) <
lucas.partri...@ge.com> wrote:

> I like the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst’ idea too. Hopefully it would be easy to
> configure it to work with a proxy for users behind a corporate firewall.
>
> Thanks, Lucas.
>
>
>
> *From:* Mohit Jaggi [mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 17 June 2016 18:06
> *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org
> *Subject:* EXT: Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_zeppelin_blob_master_zeppelin-2Dinterpreter_src_main_java_org_apache_zeppelin_dep_DependencyResolver.java&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=b48EeMu0glDkXuGn72ZTy8ZteEiVBzmpbTqELmhgsRc&e=>
>
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ZEPPELIN-2D598&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=MK9lpcZjSIlgFO0CVk6kMWB1bCPqpWK_0qhSjOQ5FzA&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:
&

Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

[Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation)]

I like the 'zeppelin-bin-netinst’ idea too. Hopefully it would be easy to 
configure it to work with a proxy for users behind a corporate firewall.
Thanks, Lucas.

From: Mohit Jaggi [mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 June 2016 18:06
To: users@zeppelin.apache.org
Subject: EXT: Re: Ask opinion regarding 0.6.0 release package

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 
mailto:m...@apache.org>> 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 
mailto:mohitja...@gmail.com>> 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 
mailto:m...@apache.org>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_zeppelin_blob_master_zeppelin-2Dinterpreter_src_main_java_org_apache_zeppelin_dep_DependencyResolver.java&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=b48EeMu0glDkXuGn72ZTy8ZteEiVBzmpbTqELmhgsRc&e=>
[2] 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-598<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_ZEPPELIN-2D598&d=CwMFaQ&c=IV_clAzoPDE253xZdHuilRgztyh_RiV3wUrLrDQYWSI&r=c1CCNND4PG-Q_V2AJWDWrugZAXQ8Y3EE_f_mAHcpXcs&m=5yX9TVM8vp2oYgFtB4gACTyCQL3FWTK2OoSXVzsJpdg&s=MK9lpcZjSIlgFO0CVk6kMWB1bCPqpWK_0qhSjOQ5FzA&e=>


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:02 AM mina lee 
mailto:mina...@apache.org>> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__zeppelin.apache.org_docs_0.6.0-2

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] <http://www.resilinc.com/>
>
> [image: cid:image002.jpg@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
> <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Resilinc/152374944798272>  [image:
> cid:image003.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] <http://www.twitter.com/resilinc>  [image:
> cid:image004.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/resilinc-corporation>  [image:
> cid:image005.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbo4dHglF3tdc-h7Db8YaGw>
>
>
>
> *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]<http://www.resilinc.com/>
[cid:image002.jpg@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0]<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Resilinc/152374944798272>
  [cid:image003.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] <http://www.twitter.com/resilinc>   
[cid:image004.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] 
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/resilinc-corporation>   
[cid:image005.png@01D0E4E0.2F0DB8A0] 
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbo4dHglF3tdc-h7Db8YaGw>

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: 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 
> 

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

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