Re: Development model

Sounds good. Kind Regards, Corey Stubbs On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:50 AM Luciano Resende wrote: > I am not suggesting doing "everything" via SBT, just the basic compile, > test, build and package so that contributors used to other sbt based > projects fill comfortable

Re: Podling Report

I have uploaded the report to the wiki and signed off as a mentor, and will take the blame if anyone complains about it :) On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Chip Senkbeil wrote: > Guess we missed this one since it was due yesterday. Considering they > really didn't like

Re: Development model

I am not suggesting doing "everything" via SBT, just the basic compile, test, build and package so that contributors used to other sbt based projects fill comfortable getting started with the project. For all the other more optional/complex tasks, I am all for using a set of fully documented

Re: Toree client programming model

Let's start by identifying some scenarios that the client is used: - Users trying to build an application which needs to interactively integrate with Spark, where the client is used to submit a piece of code and expects an indication that the full results are back to continue doing what it needs

Re: Toree client programming model

So the client programming model is meant to reflect the Jupyter Protocol, which has taken into account issues like streaming. However, the client could still be cleaned up. Maybe something along the lines of: val exRes: DeferredExecution = client.execute(code) .onError(executeReplyError =>{ ...

Re: Development model

My typical development flow is to write code, run pip-release , and then install the pip release locally on my machine (pip install dist/toree-pip/pip-release; jupyter toree install), and test changes with the install. +1 on working on documenting the make targets. In terms of getting everything

Re: Podling Report

Guess we missed this one since it was due yesterday. Considering they really didn't like when we edited after the deadline earlier, we should just be listed as missing the report. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017, 11:12 PM Marius van Niekerk wrote: > Pretty sure the following is