Hi, Jim, Thanks for your feedback, your suggestions are very good. I have replied in the discussion mail, please take a look.
> 2022年11月29日 03:18，Jim Hughes <jhug...@confluent.io.INVALID> 写道： > > Hi Shengkai, Yu, > > Thanks for the FLIP! I have had a chance to read it, and it looks good. I > do have some questions: > > I do like the idea of unifying the approaches so that the code doesn't get > out of step. > > 1. For the Client Parser, is it going to work with the extended syntax > from the Flink Table Store? > > 2. Relatedly, what will happen if an older Client tries to handle syntax > that a newer service supports? (Suppose I use a 1.17 client with a 1.18 > Gateway/system which has a new keyword. Is there anything we should be > designing for upfront?) > > 3. How will client and server version mismatches be handled? Will a > single gateway be able to support multiple endpoint versions? > 4. How are commands which change a session handled? Are those sent via > an ExecuteStatementRequest? > > 5. The remote POC uses polling for getting back status and getting back > results. Would it be possible to switch to web sockets or some other > mechanism to avoid polling? If polling is used for both, the polling > frequency should be different between local and remote configurations. > > 6. What does this sentence mean? "The reason why we didn't get the sql > type in client side is because it's hard for the lightweight client-level > parser to recognize some sql type sql, such as query with CTE. " > > 7. What is the serialization lifecycle for results? It makes sense to > have some control over whether the gateway returns results as SQL or JSON. > I'd love to see a way to avoid needing to serialize and deserialize results > on the SQL Gateway if possible. I'm still new enough to the project that > I'm not sure if that's readily possible. Maybe the SQL Gateway's return > type can be sent as part of the request so that the JobManager can send > back results in an advantageous format? > > 8. Does ErrorType need to be marked as @PublicEvolving? > > I'm excited for the SQL client to support gateway mode! Given the change > in design, do you think it'll still be part of the Flink 1.17 release? > > Cheers, > > Jim > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 8:54 PM Shengkai Fang <fskm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Jim and Alexey. >> >> We have written the proposal[1]. It would be appreciated if you can give us >> some feedback. >> >> Best, >> Shengkai >> >> [1] >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-275%3A+Support+Remote+SQL+Client+Based+on+SQL+Gateway >> >> yu zelin <yuzelin....@gmail.com> 于2022年11月24日周四 12:06写道： >> >>> Hi Jim, >>> Sorry for incorrect message in last reply. >>>> Shengkai will help to your PR >>> I mean Shengkai will help to review the PRs. And I will add some of your >>> suggestion to my design. >>> >>> I think the POC code will be cherry-picked to my new design of SQL >> Client. >>>> 2022年11月23日 12:18，yu zelin <yuzelin....@gmail.com> 写道： >>>> >>>> Hi Jim, >>>> Sorry for late response. Just another busy week :) >>>> Last week, I’ve discussed within my team about my design. My teammates >>> think it’s better to unify the local and remote mode, so I’ve >> investigated >>> and redesigned a new plan. I’ll inform you after the rewriting of FLIP >>> finished (will be soon) and Shengkai will help to your PR. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Yu Zelin >>>> >>>>> 2022年11月22日 02:59，Jim Hughes <jhug...@confluent.io.INVALID> 写道： >>>>> >>>>> Hi Yu, Shengkai, >>>>> >>>>> As a quick update, I've had a chance to try out Yu's POC and it is >>> working >>>>> for me. (Admittedly, I haven't tried it too extensively; I only tried >>>>> basic operations.) >>>>> >>>>> From my experiments, I did leave a few comments on >>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/20958. >>>>> >>>>> Overall, the PRs I see look pretty good. Are they going to be merged >>>>> soon? Anything else I can do to help? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>> >>> >>> >>
