at least such generic shell would definitely be a huge endeavor  and
probably we won't be able to validate it anyway until we add Stratosphere
to the pack.

Anand, you are welcome though to try and create such a generic shell on the
side branch though.


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov (JIRA) <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>     [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1529?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13988493#comment-13988493]
>
> Dmitriy Lyubimov commented on MAHOUT-1529:
> ------------------------------------------
>
> bq. I think we also need
> bq. (6) Rename mahout spark-shell (both command and source
> dir/files/variables) to "mahout shell" (or mahout console?) which only uses
> the logical layer and backend layer is selected at runtime/startup.
>
> No, we don't . Shell is in essense Spark's REPL. in that sense it is
> exactly and literally spark-shell. It includes byte code mechanisms to
> compile closures on-the-fly and pass them to the backend.
>
> How other engines would want to do that, i have no clue. Chances for a
> generic (and cheap) Mahout shell are very slim IMO.
>
> > Finalize abstraction of distributed logical plans from backend operations
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >                 Key: MAHOUT-1529
> >                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1529
> >             Project: Mahout
> >          Issue Type: Improvement
> >            Reporter: Dmitriy Lyubimov
> >             Fix For: 1.0
> >
> >
> > We have a few situations when algorithm-facing API has Spark
> dependencies creeping in.
> > In particular, we know of the following cases:
> > (1) checkpoint() accepts Spark constant StorageLevel directly;
> > (2) certain things in CheckpointedDRM;
> > (3) drmParallelize etc. routines in the "drm" and "sparkbindings"
> package.
> > (5) drmBroadcast returns a Spark-specific Broadcast object
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> (v6.2#6252)
>

Reply via email to