I don't really see Euphoria as a subset of SQL or the other way around, and I think it makes sense to use either without the other, so by this criteria keeping them as siblings than a nesting.
That said, I think it's really good to have a bunch of shared code, e.g. a join library that could be used by both. One could even depend on the other without having to abandon the sibling relationship. Something like retractions belong in the core SDK itself. Deeper than that, actually, it should be part of the model. - Robert On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:20 PM David Morávek <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > Jan, we made Kryo optional recently (it is a separate module and is used only > in tests). From a quick look it seems that we forgot to remove compile time > dependency from euphoria's build.gradle. Only "strong" dependencies I'm aware > of are core SDK and guava. We'll be probably adding sketching extension > dependency soon. > > D. > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:08 PM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: >> >> Hi Anton, >> reactions inline. >> >> ---------- Původní e-mail ---------- >> Od: Anton Kedin <ke...@google.com> >> Komu: dev@beam.apache.org >> Datum: 30. 11. 2018 18:17:06 >> Předmět: Re: [DISCUSS] Structuring Java based DSLs >> >> I think this approach makes sense in general, Euphoria can be the >> implementation detail of SQL, similar to Join Library or core SDK Schemas. >> >> I wonder though whether it would be better to bring Euphoria closer to core >> SDK first, maybe even merge them together. If you look at Reuven's recent >> work around schemas it seems like there are already similarities between >> that and Euphoria's approach, unless I'm missing the point (e.g. Filter >> transforms, FullJoin vs CoGroup... see [2]). And we're already switching >> parts of SQL to those transforms (e.g. SQL Aggregation is now implemented by >> core SDK's Group[3]). >> >> >> >> Yes, these transforms seem to be very similar to those Euphoria has. Whether >> or not to merge Euphoria with core is essentially just a decision of the >> community (in my point of view). >> >> >> >> Adding explicit Schema support to Euphoria will bring it both closer to core >> SDK and make it natural to use for SQL. Can this be a first step towards >> this integration? >> >> >> >> Euphoria currently operates on pure PCollections, so when PCollection has a >> schema, it will be accessible by Euphoria. It makes sense to make use of the >> schema in Euphoria - it seems natural on inputs to Euphoria operators, but >> it might be tricky (not saying impossible) to actually produce schema-aware >> PCollections as outputs from Euphoria operators (generally speaking, in >> special cases that might be possible). Regarding inputs, there is actually >> intention to act on type of PCollection - e.g. when PCollection is already >> of type KV, then it is possible to make key extractor and value extractor >> optional in Euphoria builders, so it feels natural to enable changing the >> builders when a schema-aware PCollection, and make use of the provided >> schema. The rest of Euphoria team might correct me, if I'm wrong. >> >> >> >> >> One question I have is, does Euphoria bring dependencies that are not needed >> by SQL, or does more or less only rely on the core SDK? >> >> >> >> I think the only relevant dependency that Euphoria has besides core SDK is >> Kryo. It is the default coder when no coder is provided, but that could be >> made optional - e.g. the default coder would be supported only if an >> appropriate module would be available. That way I think that Euphoria has no >> special dependencies. >> >> >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/f66eb5fe23b2500b396e6f711cdf4aeef6b31ab8/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/schemas/transforms/Group.java#L73 >> [2] >> https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/f66eb5fe23b2500b396e6f711cdf4aeef6b31ab8/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/schemas/transforms >> [3] >> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/f66eb5fe23b2500b396e6f711cdf4aeef6b31ab8/sdks/java/extensions/sql/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/extensions/sql/impl/rel/BeamAggregationRel.java#L179 >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:29 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: >> >> Hi community, >> >> I'm part of Euphoria DSL team, and on behalf of this team, I'd like to >> discuss possible development of Java based DSLs currently present in >> Beam. In my knowledge, there are currently two DSLs based on Java SDK - >> Euphoria and SQL. These DSLs currently share only the SDK itself, >> although there might be room to share some more effort. We already know >> that both Euphoria and SQL have need for retractions, but there are >> probably many more features that these two could share. >> >> So, I'd like to open a discussion on what it would cost and what it >> would possibly bring, if instead of the current structure >> >> Java SDK >> >> | ---- SQL >> >> | ---- Euphoria >> >> these DSLs would be structured as >> >> Java SDK ---> Euphoria ---> SQL >> >> I'm absolutely sure that this would be a great investment and a huge >> change, but I'd like to gather some opinions and general feelings of the >> community about this. Some points to start the discussion from my side >> would be, that structuring DSLs like this has internal logical >> consistency, because each API layer further narrows completeness, but >> brings simpler API for simpler tasks, while adding additional high-level >> view of the data processing pipeline and thus enabling more >> optimizations. On Euphoria side, these are various implementations joins >> (most effective implementation depends on data), pipeline sampling and >> more. Some (or maybe most) of these optimizations would have to be >> implemented in both DSLs, so implementing them once is beneficial. >> Another benefit is that this would bring Euphoria "closer" to Beam core >> development (which would be good, it is part of the project anyway, >> right? :)) and help better drive features, that although currently >> needed mostly by SQL, might be needed by other Java users anyway. >> >> Thanks for discussion and looking forward to any opinions. >> >> Jan >>
