“So usually we would recommend user to specify the full qualified interpreter name.” - I usually recommend the exact opposite to our users. We frequently change interpreter groups to allow for different Spark cluster settings (number of executors, memory, etc). Users with more demanding requirements are asked to use custom interpreter groups with more allocated resources. If users included the interpreter group name at the start of every paragraph they would then have to manually edit the start of every paragraph before they could run their note using a different interpreter group. Very tedious!
But I agree the short names without the interpreter group are often ambiguous and can cause confusion. Maybe somewhere in the execution output of each paragraph there should be some discrete text giving the fully qualified name of the interpreter that was actually used to produce that output. Or a clearly defined ‘default interpreter group’ text in the toolbar at the top of each notebook. Make it a dropdown so it would be easy to change the default. From: Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> Sent: 06 July 2018 08:53 To: users@zeppelin.apache.org Cc: dev <d...@zeppelin.apache.org> Subject: EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] Is interpreter binding necessary ? We already allow setting default interpreter when creating note. Another way to set default interpreter is to reorder the interpreter setting binding in note page. But personally I don't recommend user to use short interpreter name because of default interpreter. 2 Reaons: 1. It introduce in-accurate info. e.g. In our product, we have 2 spark interpreters (`spark`: for spark 1.x & `spark2` for spark 2.x). Then user often specify `%spark` for spark interpreter. But it could mean both `%spark.spark` and `%spark2.spark`, So usually it is very hard to tell what's wrong when user expect to work spark2 but actually he still use spark 1.x. So usually we would recommend user to specify the full qualified interpreter name. Just type several more characters which just cost 2 seconds but make it more clear and readable. 2. Another issue is that interpreter binding is stored in interpreter.json, that means if they export this note to another zeppelin instance, the default interpreter won't work. So I don't think setting default interpreter via interpreter binding is valuable for users. If user really want to do that, I would suggest to store it in note.json instead of interpreter.json Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com<mailto:jongy...@gmail.com>>于2018年7月6日周五 下午3:36写道： There are two purposes of interpreter binding. One is what you mentioned and another one is to manage a default interpreter. If we provide a new way to set default interpreter, I think we can remove them :-) We could set permissions in other ways. Overall, +1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com<mailto:zjf...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Folks, I raise this thread to discuss whether we need the interpreter binding. Currently when user create notes, they have to bind interpreters to their notes in note page. Otherwise they will hit interpreter not found issue. Besides that in zeppelin server side, we maintain the interpreter binding info in memory as well as in interpreter.json. IMHO, it is not necessary to do interpreter binding. Because it just add extra burden to maintain the interpreter binding info in zeppelin server side, and doesn't introduce any benefits. The only benefit is that we will check whether user have permission to use this interpreter, but actually zeppelin will check the permission when running paragraph, so I don't think we need to introduce interpreter binding just for this kind of permission check that we will do later. So overall, I would suggest to remove interpreter binding feature. What do you think ? -- 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 http://madeng.net
