Github user khalidhuseynov commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
@bzz thanks for the review, I'll be glad to hear for the elegant solutions
of the mentioned issues, even can help with implementation :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
Good point, if asked, I would say that having `NotebookRepoSync implements
NotebookRepo` is not an elegant design either - NotebookRepoSync is not a
NoteboksRepo! :)
It's up to you after all,
Github user khalidhuseynov commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
yeah, I agree that having two interfaces is more elegant, but let's see
some more detailed downsides. if you see
[here](https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/blob/master/zeppelin-zengine/src/m
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
Thank you for addressing feedback promptly.
Well, in my oppinion, if by "encourage more versioned implementation" you
mean having this code duplicated 5 times around the code base
```java
Github user khalidhuseynov commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
the reason is quite simple, that's to have only one interface to be
implemented (instead of choosing from two, given that documentation doesn't
mention `NotebookRepoVersioned` so far). Also
Github user bzz commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
Great improvement!
Could you please explain the rationale behind removing
`NotebookRepoVersioned` and making a lot of boilerplate methods returning
`null` in all other notebook storages that
Github user khalidhuseynov commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/zeppelin/pull/1007
ready for review
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishe
