IMHO I would rather unload the not mentioned modules. The statement
expresses `USE` that implicilty implies that the other modules are "not
used". What do others think?
Regards,
Timo
On 01.02.21 11:28, Jane Chan wrote:
Hi Jark and Rui,
Thanks for the discussions.
Regarding #1, I'm fine with `USE MODULES` syntax, and
It can be interpreted as "setting the current order of modules", which is
similar to "setting the current catalog" for `USE CATALOG`.
I would like to confirm that the unmentioned modules remain in the same
relative order? E.g., if there are three loaded modules `X`, `Y`, `Z`, then
`USE MODULES Y, Z` means shifting the order to `Y`, `Z`, `X`.
Regarding #3, I'm fine with mapping modules purely by name, and I think
Jark raised a good point on making the module name a simple identifier
instead of a string literal. For backward compatibility, since we haven't
supported this syntax yet, the affected users are those who defined modules
in the YAML configuration file. Maybe we can eliminate the 'type' from the
'requiredContext' to make it optional. Thus the proposed mapping mechanism
could use the module name to lookup the suitable factory, and in the
meanwhile updating documentation to encourage users to simplify their YAML
configuration. And in the long run, we can deprecate the 'type'.
Best,
Jane
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:19 PM Rui Li <lirui.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jane for starting the discussion.
Regarding #1, I also prefer `USE MODULES` syntax. It can be interpreted as
"setting the current order of modules", which is similar to "setting the
current catalog" for `USE CATALOG`.
Regarding #3, I'm fine to map modules purely by name because I think it
satisfies all the use cases we have at hand. But I guess we need to make
sure we're backward compatible, i.e. users don't need to change their yaml
files to configure the modules.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:10 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jane for the summary and starting the discussion in the mailing
list.
Here are my thoughts:
1) syntax to reorder modules
I agree with Rui Li it would be quite useful if we can have some syntax
to
reorder modules.
I slightly prefer `USE MODULES x, y, z` than `RELOAD MODULES x, y, z`,
because USE has a more sense of effective and specifying ordering, than
RELOAD.
From my feeling, RELOAD just means we unregister and register x,y,z
modules
again,
it sounds like other registered modules are still in use and in the
order.
3) mapping modules purely by name
This can definitely improve the usability of loading modules, because
the 'type=' property
looks really redundant. We can think of this as a syntax sugar that the
default type value is the module name.
And we can support to specify 'type=' property in the future to allow
multiple modules for one module type.
Besides, I would like to mention one more change, that the module name
proposed in FLIP-68 is a string literal.
But I think we are all on the same page to change it into a simple
(non-compound) identifier.
LOAD/UNLOAD MODULE 'core'
==>
LOAD/UNLOAD MODULE core
Best,
Jark
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 at 04:00, Jane Chan <qingyue....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to start a discussion on FLINK-21045 [1] about supporting
`LOAD MODULE` and `UNLOAD MODULE` SQL syntax. It's first proposed by
FLIP-68 [2] as following.
-- load a module with the given name and append it to the end of the
module
list
LOAD MODULE 'name' [WITH ('type'='xxx', 'prop'='myProp', ...)]
--unload a module by name from the module list and other modules remain
in
the same relative positions
UNLOAD MODULE 'name'
After a round of discussion on the Jira ticket, it seems some
unanswered
questions need more opinions and suggestions.
1. The way to redefine resolution order easily
Rui Li suggested introducing `USE MODULES` and adding similar
functionality to the API because
1) It's very tedious to unload old modules just to reorder them.
2) Users may not even know how to "re-load" an old module if it was
not
initially loaded by the user, e.g. don't know which type to use.
Jane Chan wondered that module is not like the catalog which has a
concept of namespace could specify, and `USE` sounds like a
mutual-exclusive concept.
Maybe `RELOAD MODULES` can express upgrading the priority of the
loaded
module(s).
2. `LOAD/UNLOAD MODULE` v.s. `CREATE/DROP MODULE` syntax
Jark Wu and Nicholas Jiang proposed to use `CREATE/DROP MODULE`
instead
of `LOAD/UNLOAD MODULE` because
1) From a pure SQL user's perspective, maybe `CREATE MODULE + USE
MODULE`
is easier to use rather than `LOAD/UNLOAD`.
2) This will be very similar to what the catalog used now.
Timo Walther would rather stick to the agreed design because
loading/unloading modules is a concept known from kernels etc.
3. Simplify the module design by mapping modules purely by name
LOAD MODULE geo_utils
LOAD MODULE hive WITH ('version'='2.1') -- no dedicated
'type='/'module='
but allow only 1 module to be loaded parameterized
UNLOAD hive
USE MODULES hive, core
Please find more details in the reference link. Looking forward to your
feedback.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-21045#
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-68%3A+Extend+Core+Table+System+with+Pluggable+Modules
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-68%3A+Extend+Core+Table+System+with+Pluggable+Modules
Best,
Jane
--
Best regards!
Rui Li
