Sergi, As I've written in my previous post, it would be just inheriting Parser on Ignite side and plugging its instance in SINGLE place. Just making H2's Parser internal methods protected instead of private would let us do the trick.
— Alex среда, 12 апреля 2017 г. пользователь Sergi Vladykin написал: > I don't see how you make H2 Parser extendable, you will have to add plugin > call to every *potentially* extendable place in it. In general this does > not work. As H2 guy I would also reject patch like this. > > Sergi > > 2017-04-12 13:10 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko < > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>: > > > Sergi, > > > > Please have a closer look at what I've written in my first post. I don't > > see why we have to cling to H2 and its parsing modes all the time — after > > all, we're just talking string processing now, aren't we? (Yes, complex > and > > non trivial, but still.) > > > > What's wrong with idea of patching H2 to allow custom parsing? (With the > > parsing itself living in Ignite code, obviously, not in H2.). > > > > What I propose is just to make H2's Parser class extendable and make H2 > > aware of its descendants via config params. And that's all with respect > to > > H2, nothing more. > > > > After that, on Ignite side we do all we want with our parser based on > > theirs. It resembles story with custom types — first we make H2 > extendable > > in the way we need, then we introduce exact features we need on Ignite > > side. > > > > — Alex > > > > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г. пользователь Sergi Vladykin написал: > > > > > It definitely makes sense to add a separate mode for Ignite in H2. > Though > > > it is wrong to think that it will allow us to add any crazy syntax we > > want > > > (and it is actually a wrong idea imo), only the minor variations of the > > > existing syntax. But this must be enough. > > > > > > I believe we should end up with something like > > > > > > CREATE TABLE person > > > ( > > > id INT PRIMARY KEY, > > > orgId INT AFFINITY KEY, > > > name VARCHAR > > > ) > > > WITH "cfg:my_config_template.xml" > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-12 7:54 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > > > Agree, the updated syntax looks better. One change though: KEY -> > > PRIMARY > > > > KEY. > > > > > > > > Sergi, what do you think? > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn < > ptupit...@apache.org <javascript:;> > > > <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think "WITH" syntax is ugly and cumbersome. > > > > > > > > > > We should go with this one: > > > > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int AFFINITY KEY, uid uuid KEY, firstName > > > > > varchar, lastName varchar) > > > > > > > > > > All databases (i.e. [1], [2]) work this way, I see no reason to > > invent > > > > > something different and confuse the users. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/create > > > > > -table-transact-sql#syntax-1 > > > > > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql- > createtable.html > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Paschenko < > > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > For H2 it would be something like this - please note all those > > > quotes, > > > > > > commas and equality signs that would be mandatory: > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int, uid uuid, firstName varchar, > lastName > > > > > > varchar) WITH "keyFields=id,uuid","affinityKey=id" > > > > > > > > > > > > With suggested approach, it would be something like > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE Person (id int AFFINITY KEY, uid uuid KEY, firstName > > > > > > varchar, lastName varchar) > > > > > > > > > > > > While this may not look like a drastic improvement in this > > particular > > > > > > case, we someday most likely will want either an all-custom > CREATE > > > > > > CACHE command, or a whole bunch of new options for CREATE TABLE, > if > > > we > > > > > > decide not to go with CREATE CACHE - I personally think that > stuff > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > CREATE TABLE ... WITH > > > > > > "keyFields=id,uuid","affinityKey=id","cacheType= > > > > partitioned","atomicity= > > > > > > atomic","partitions=3" > > > > > > > > > > > > which will arise if we continue to try to stuff everything into > > WITH > > > > > > will just bring more ugliness with time, and that's not to > mention > > > > > > that new CREATE CACHE syntax will be impossible or relatively > hard > > to > > > > > > introduce as we will have to approve it with H2 folks, and that's > > how > > > > > > it will be with any new param or command that we want. > > > > > > > > > > > > Allowing to plug custom parser into H2 (as we do now with table > > > > > > engine) will let us introduce any syntax we want and focus on > > > > > > usability and not on compromises and workarounds (which WITH > > keyword > > > > > > currently is). > > > > > > > > > > > > - Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-12 5:11 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org <javascript:;> > > > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > > > Alexeander, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please provide an example of what the CREATE TABLE > > command > > > > > would > > > > > > > look like if we use WITH syntax from H2 vs. what you are > > proposing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Alexander Paschenko < > > > > > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hello Igniters, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yup, it's THAT time once again as we haven't ultimately > settled > > on > > > > > > >> anything with the subj. as of yet, but I believe that now with > > DDL > > > > on > > > > > > >> its way this talk can't be avoided anymore (sorry guys). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The last time we talked about Ignite specific stuff we need to > > > have > > > > in > > > > > > >> CREATE TABLE (key fields list, affinity key, am I missing > > > > anything?), > > > > > > >> the simplest approach suggested by Sergi was that we simply > use > > > WITH > > > > > > >> part of H2's CREATE TABLE to pass stuff we need. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> This could work, but needless to say that such commands would > > look > > > > > plain > > > > > > >> ugly. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think we should go with custom syntax after all, BUT not in > a > > > way > > > > > > >> suggested before by Sergi (propose Apache Ignite mode to H2). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Instead, I suggest that we propose to H2 patch that would > allow > > > > > > >> plugging in *custom SQL parser* directly based on theirs > (quite > > > > > > >> elegant one) – I've had a look at their code, and this should > > not > > > be > > > > > > >> hard. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Work on such a patch making syntax parsing overridable would > > take > > > a > > > > > > >> couple days which is not much time AND would give us the > > > opportunity > > > > > > >> to introduce to Ignite virtually any syntax we wish - both now > > and > > > > in > > > > > > >> the future. Without worrying about compatibility with H2 ever > > > again, > > > > > > >> that is. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thoughts? After we agree on this principally and after H2 > patch > > > for > > > > > > >> custom parsing is ready, we can roll our sleeves and focus on > > > syntax > > > > > > >> itself. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> - Alex > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
