+1 for classic. It's simple, easy to understand and it doesn't have the negative meanings like legacy for example.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 23:48 Wenchen Fan <cloud0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Classic SGTM. > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'd propose not to change the name of "Spark Connect" - the name >> represents the characteristic of the mode (separation of layer for client >> and server). Trying to remove the part of "Connect" would just make >> confusion. >> >> +1 for Classic to existing mode, till someone comes up with better >> alternatives. >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:50 AM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I was thinking about a similar option too but I ended up giving this up >>> .. It's quite unlikely at this moment but suppose that we have another >>> Spark Connect-ish component in the far future and it would be challenging >>> to come up with another name ... Another case is that we might have to cope >>> with the cases like Spark Connect, vs Spark (with Spark Connect) and Spark >>> (without Spark Connect) .. >>> >>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 at 09:59, Holden Karau <holden.ka...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think perhaps Spark Connect could be phrased as “Basic* Spark” & >>>> existing Spark could be “Full Spark” given the API limitations of Spark >>>> connect. >>>> >>>> *I was also thinking Core here but we’ve used core to refer to the RDD >>>> APIs for too long to reuse it here. >>>> >>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >>>> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): >>>> https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> >>>> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 8:02 PM Xiao Li <gatorsm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Classic is much better than Legacy. : ) >>>>> >>>>> Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@apache.org> 于2024年7月18日周四 16:58写道： >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I noticed that we need to standardize our terminology before moving >>>>>> forward. For instance, when documenting, 'Spark without Spark Connect' is >>>>>> too long and verbose. Additionally, I've observed that we use various >>>>>> names >>>>>> for Spark without Spark Connect: Spark Classic, Classic Spark, Legacy >>>>>> Spark, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> I propose that we consistently refer to it as Spark Classic (vs. >>>>>> Spark Connect). >>>>>> >>>>>> Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>
