Hi Peter, Sorry late to reply. Thanks for your efforts on this and I just looked through your design. I left some comments in the doc about alter function section and function catalog interface. IMO, the overall design is ok and we can discuss further more about some details. I also think it’s necessary to have this awesome feature limit to basic function (of course better to have all :) ) in 1.10 release.
Best, Terry Wang > 2019年10月16日 14:19，Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> 写道： > > Hi Xuefu, > > Thank you for the feedback. I think you are pointing out a similar concern > with Bowen. Let me describe > how the catalog function and function factory will be changed in the > implementation section. > Then, we can have more discussion in detail. > > > Best Regards > Peter Huang > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 4:18 PM Xuefu Z <usxu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks to Peter for the proposal! >> >> I left some comments in the google doc. Besides what Bowen pointed out, I'm >> unclear about how things work end to end from the document. For instance, >> SQL DDL-like function definition is mentioned. I guess just having a DDL >> for it doesn't explain how it's supported functionally. I think it's better >> to have some clarification on what is expected work and what's for the >> future. >> >> Thanks, >> Xuefu >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:05 AM Bowen Li <bowenl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Zhenqiu, >>> >>> Thanks for taking on this effort! >>> >>> A couple questions: >>> - Though this FLIP is about function DDL, can we also think about how the >>> created functions can be mapped to CatalogFunction and see if we need to >>> modify CatalogFunction interface? Syntax changes need to be backed by the >>> backend. >>> - Can we define a clearer, smaller scope targeting for Flink 1.10 among >> all >>> the proposed changes? The current overall scope seems to be quite wide, >> and >>> it may be unrealistic to get everything in a single release, or even a >>> couple. However, I believe the most common user story can be something as >>> simple as "being able to create and persist a java class-based udf and >> use >>> it later in queries", which will add great value for most Flink users and >>> is achievable in 1.10. >>> >>> Bowen >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:46 PM Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Community, >>>> >>>> FLIP-79 Flink Function DDL Support >>>> < >>>> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16kkHlis80s61ifnIahCj-0IEdy5NJ1z-vGEJd_JuLog/edit# >>>>> >>>> >>>> This proposal aims to support function DDL with the consideration of >> SQL >>>> syntax, language compliance, and advanced external UDF lib >> registration. >>>> The Flink DDL is initialized and discussed in the design >>>> < >>>> >>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TTP-GCC8wSsibJaSUyFZ_5NBAHYEB1FVmPpP7RgDGBA/edit#heading=h.wpsqidkaaoil >>>>> >>>> [1] by Shuyi Chen and Timo. As the initial discussion mainly focused on >>> the >>>> table, type and view. FLIP-69 [2] extend it with a more detailed >>> discussion >>>> of DDL for catalog, database, and function. Original the function DDL >> was >>>> under the scope of FLIP-69. After some discussion >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7151> with the community, >>> we >>>> found that there are several ongoing efforts, such as FLIP-64 [3], >>> FLIP-65 >>>> [4], and FLIP-78 [5]. As they will directly impact the SQL syntax of >>>> function DDL, the proposal wants to describe the problem clearly with >> the >>>> consideration of existing works and make sure the design aligns with >>>> efforts of API change of temporary objects and type inference for UDF >>>> defined by different languages. >>>> >>>> The FlLIP outlines the requirements from related works, and propose a >> SQL >>>> syntax to meet those requirements. The corresponding implementation is >>> also >>>> discussed. Please kindly review and give feedback. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> Peter Huang >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Xuefu Zhang >> >> "In Honey We Trust!" >>
