C) sounds also logical to me. It follows closer the implementation.
On 05/04/16 20:58, Jeff Steinmetz wrote:
I actually was thinking about an idea similar to option C before this topic came up. 208 is Knitr friendly, so r.r and r.knitr as a clear differentiator between the 702 spark.r interpreter makes sense to me. B also looks like an decent option as well, but my preference is C. On 4/5/16, 11:18 AM, "Leemoonsoo" <g...@git.apache.org> wrote:Github user Leemoonsoo commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/815#issuecomment-205928501 Regarding, name conflict, i can come up with some options. a. Keep the same name 'spark.r' for both [SparkRInterpreter](https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/spark/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/spark/SparkRInterpreter.java) and [RRepl](https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/r/src/main/java/org/apache/zeppelin/rinterpreter/RRepl.java). And let user select it in build time using maven profile, -Pr for RRepl, -Psparkr for SparkRInterpreter, or select it in a runtime using `zeppelin.interpreters` property in conf/zeppelin-site.xml b. Change SparkRInterpreter name to 'spark.sparkr', similar to PySparkInterpreter uses the name 'spark.pyspark' c. Change RRepl, and KnitR name from 'spark.r', 'spark.knitr' -> 'r.r', r.knitr'. And make RRepl and KnitR more like generic R support rather than SparkR support. Similar to what [ZEPPELIN-502](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-502) trying to do for python Personally, i'm good with all three options and prefer c) as a long term plan, while my guess is many R users will use r without sparkr integration. What do you think? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket with INFRA. ---
