Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

Just FWIW, Spark remains as Spark. We just refer to "Spark without Spark Connect" in the documentation as "Spark Classic" for clarification. I think it won't be excessively used. On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 at 03:59, Holden Karau wrote: > I'm concerned about the term "Classic" bringing a negative connot

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

I'm concerned about the term "Classic" bringing a negative connotation to it. On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:11 PM Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > Yeah that's what I intended. Thanks for clarification. > > Let me start the vote > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 08:14, Sadha Chilukoori > wrote: > >> Hi Dongjoon, >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

Yeah that's what I intended. Thanks for clarification. Let me start the vote On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 08:14, Sadha Chilukoori wrote: > Hi Dongjoon, > > *To be clear, is the proposal aiming to make us to say like A instead of B > in our documentation?* > > *A. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RD

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

Hi Dongjoon, *To be clear, is the proposal aiming to make us to say like A instead of B in our documentation?* *A. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RDD API, we need to use `Spark Classic` mode instead.* *B. Since `Spark Connect` mode has no RDD API, we need to use `Spark without Spark Connect` m

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

Thank you for opening this thread, Hyukjin. In this discussion thread, we have three terminologies, (1) ~ (3). > Spark Classic (vs. Spark Connect) 1. Spark 2. Spark Classic (= A proposal for Spark without Spark Connect) 3. Spark Connect As Holden and Jungtaek mentioned, - (1) is definitel

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

+1 (non-binding) for classic. On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:59 AM Martin Grund wrote: > +1 for classic. It's simple, easy to understand and it doesn't have the > negative meanings like legacy for example. > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 23:48 Wenchen Fan wrote: > >> Classic SGTM. >> >> On Mon, Jul 22,

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

+1 for classic. It's simple, easy to understand and it doesn't have the negative meanings like legacy for example. On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 23:48 Wenchen Fan wrote: > Classic SGTM. > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jungtaek Lim > wrote: > >> I'd propose not to change the name of "Spark Connect

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

Classic SGTM. On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jungtaek Lim wrote: > I'd propose not to change the name of "Spark Connect" - the name > represents the characteristic of the mode (separation of layer for client > and server). Trying to remove the part of "Connect" would just make > confusion. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

I'd propose not to change the name of "Spark Connect" - the name represents the characteristic of the mode (separation of layer for client and server). Trying to remove the part of "Connect" would just make confusion. +1 for Classic to existing mode, till someone comes up with better alternatives.

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

I was thinking about a similar option too but I ended up giving this up .. It's quite unlikely at this moment but suppose that we have another Spark Connect-ish component in the far future and it would be challenging to come up with another name ... Another case is that we might have to cope with t

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

+1 for Classic On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 9:58 PM Denny Lee wrote: > +1 for 'Classic' as well :) > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 10:15 AM Ruifeng Zheng > wrote: > >> +1 for 'Classic' >> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:03 AM Xiao Li wrote: >> >>> Classic is much better than Legacy. : ) >>> >>> Hyukjin Kw

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

+1 for ClassicSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 21, 2024, at 10:15 AM, Ruifeng Zheng wrote:+1 for 'Classic'On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:03 AM Xiao Li wrote:Classic is much better than Legacy. : ) Hyukjin Kwon 于2024年7月18日周四 16:58写道：Hi all,I noticed that we need t

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

+1 for 'Classic' as well :) On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 10:15 AM Ruifeng Zheng wrote: > +1 for 'Classic' > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:03 AM Xiao Li wrote: > >> Classic is much better than Legacy. : ) >> >> Hyukjin Kwon 于2024年7月18日周四 16:58写道： >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I noticed that we need to standa

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

+1 for 'Classic' On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:03 AM Xiao Li wrote: > Classic is much better than Legacy. : ) > > Hyukjin Kwon 于2024年7月18日周四 16:58写道： > >> Hi all, >> >> I noticed that we need to standardize our terminology before moving >> forward. For instance, when documenting, 'Spark without Spa

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

I think perhaps Spark Connect could be phrased as “Basic* Spark” & existing Spark could be “Full Spark” given the API limitations of Spark connect. *I was also thinking Core here but we’ve used core to refer to the RDD APIs for too long to reuse it here. Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau B

Re: [DISCUSS] Differentiate Spark without Spark Connect from Spark Connect

Classic is much better than Legacy. : ) Hyukjin Kwon 于2024年7月18日周四 16:58写道： > Hi all, > > I noticed that we need to standardize our terminology before moving > forward. For instance, when documenting, 'Spark without Spark Connect' is > too long and verbose. Additionally, I've observed that we us