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
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.
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.
>
>
