;d consider that out of scope
for the current one. Otherwise we'd not release something probably for the next
2 or 3 years.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:50 PM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I guess I was more suggesting that by coding up the powerful mode as the API,
;d consider that out of scope
for the current one. Otherwise we'd not release something probably for the next
2 or 3 years.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:50 PM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I guess I was more suggesting that by coding up the powerful mode as the API,
;d consider that out of scope
for the current one. Otherwise we'd not release something probably for the next
2 or 3 years.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:50 PM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I guess I was more suggesting that by coding up the powerful mode as the API,
;d consider that out of scope
for the current one. Otherwise we'd not release something probably for the next
2 or 3 years.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:50 PM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I guess I was more suggesting that by coding up the powerful mode as the API,
ble, to save the effort of designing a stable representation
of query plan and maintaining forward compatibility.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I'll just focus on the one-by-one thing for now - it's the thing that blocks me
the m
ble, to save the effort of designing a stable representation
of query plan and maintaining forward compatibility.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I'll just focus on the one-by-one thing for now - it's the thing that blocks me
the m
ble, to save the effort of designing a stable representation
of query plan and maintaining forward compatibility.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I'll just focus on the one-by-one thing for now - it's the thing that blocks me
the m
ble, to save the effort of designing a stable representation
of query plan and maintaining forward compatibility.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba...@outlook.com>> wrote:
I'll just focus on the one-by-one thing for now - it's the thing that blocks me
the m
port interface, so that advanced data source can implement it for
optimal performance, and simple data source doesn't need to care about it and
keep simple.
The current design is very friendly to simple data source, and has the
potential to support complex data source, I prefer the current
port interface, so that advanced data source can implement it for
optimal performance, and simple data source doesn't need to care about it and
keep simple.
The current design is very friendly to simple data source, and has the
potential to support complex data source, I prefer the current
port interface, so that advanced data source can implement it for
optimal performance, and simple data source doesn't need to care about it and
keep simple.
The current design is very friendly to simple data source, and has the
potential to support complex data source, I prefer the current
posed to be. If a data source simply implements one of the trait, it'd be
logically identical to v1. I don't see why it would be worse or better, other
than v2 provides much stronger forward compatibility guarantees than v1.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:54 AM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba..
posed to be. If a data source simply implements one of the trait, it'd be
logically identical to v1. I don't see why it would be worse or better, other
than v2 provides much stronger forward compatibility guarantees than v1.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:54 AM, James Baker
mailto:j.ba..
Copying from the code review comments I just submitted on the draft API
(https://github.com/cloud-fan/spark/pull/10#pullrequestreview-59088745):
Context here is that I've spent some time implementing a Spark datasource and
have had some issues with the current API which are made worse in V2.
Th
Copying from the code review comments I just submitted on the draft API
(https://github.com/cloud-fan/spark/pull/10#pullrequestreview-59088745):
Context here is that I've spent some time implementing a Spark datasource and
have had some issues with the current API which are made worse in V2.
Th
Copying from the code review comments I just submitted on the draft API
(https://github.com/cloud-fan/spark/pull/10#pullrequestreview-59088745):
Context here is that I've spent some time implementing a Spark datasource and
have had some issues with the current API which are made worse in V2.
Th
16 matches
Mail list logo
