If there is no per-interpreter overhead of binding all the interpreters from the beginning, we should definitely do it. This will simplify the GUI somewhat.
Regards, - Sanjay On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Partridge, Lucas (GE Aviation) < lucas.partri...@ge.com> wrote: > “So usually we would recommend user to specify the full qualified > interpreter name.” > > - I usually recommend the exact opposite to our users. We frequently > change interpreter groups to allow for different Spark cluster settings > (number of executors, memory, etc). Users with more demanding requirements > are asked to use custom interpreter groups with more allocated resources. > If users included the interpreter group name at the start of every > paragraph they would then have to manually edit the start of every > paragraph before they could run their note using a different interpreter > group. Very tedious! > > > > But I agree the short names without the interpreter group are often > ambiguous and can cause confusion. Maybe somewhere in the execution output > of each paragraph there should be some discrete text giving the fully > qualified name of the interpreter that was actually used to produce that > output. Or a clearly defined ‘default interpreter group’ text in the > toolbar at the top of each notebook. Make it a dropdown so it would be easy > to change the default. > > > > *From:* Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 06 July 2018 08:53 > *To:* users@zeppelin.apache.org > *Cc:* dev <d...@zeppelin.apache.org> > *Subject:* EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] Is interpreter binding necessary ? > > > > > > We already allow setting default interpreter when creating note. Another > way to set default interpreter is to reorder the interpreter setting > binding in note page. > > > > But personally I don't recommend user to use short interpreter name > because of default interpreter. 2 Reaons: > > 1. It introduce in-accurate info. e.g. In our product, we have 2 spark > interpreters (`spark`: for spark 1.x & `spark2` for spark 2.x). Then user > often specify `%spark` for spark interpreter. But it could mean both > `%spark.spark` and `%spark2.spark`, So usually it is very hard to tell > what's wrong when user expect to work spark2 but actually he still use > spark 1.x. So usually we would recommend user to specify the full qualified > interpreter name. Just type several more characters which just cost 2 > seconds but make it more clear and readable. > > 2. Another issue is that interpreter binding is stored in > interpreter.json, that means if they export this note to another zeppelin > instance, the default interpreter won't work. > > > > So I don't think setting default interpreter via interpreter binding is > valuable for users. If user really want to do that, I would suggest to > store it in note.json instead of interpreter.json > > > > > > Jongyoul Lee <jongy...@gmail.com>于2018年7月6日周五 下午3:36写道： > > There are two purposes of interpreter binding. One is what you mentioned > and another one is to manage a default interpreter. If we provide a new way > to set default interpreter, I think we can remove them :-) We could set > permissions in other ways. > > > > Overall, +1 > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Zhang <zjf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > I raise this thread to discuss whether we need the interpreter binding. > Currently when user create notes, they have to bind interpreters to their > notes in note page. Otherwise they will hit interpreter not found issue. > Besides that in zeppelin server side, we maintain the interpreter binding > info in memory as well as in interpreter.json. > > > > IMHO, it is not necessary to do interpreter binding. Because it just add > extra burden to maintain the interpreter binding info in zeppelin server > side, and doesn't introduce any benefits. The only benefit is that we will > check whether user have permission to use this interpreter, but actually > zeppelin will check the permission when running paragraph, so I don't think > we need to introduce interpreter binding just for this kind of permission > check that we will do later. > > > > So overall, I would suggest to remove interpreter binding feature. What > do you think ? > > > > > > -- > > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 > > http://madeng.net > >
