Ted Dunning 2012-10-12, 05:48
Julian Hyde 2012-10-12, 07:05
Ted Dunning 2012-10-12, 17:34
For those implementing parsing & validation of the query language. Please let me share my hard-earned wisdom...
1. Separate parsing and validation. The parser should do the absolute minimum of validation. Don't try to validate identifiers. Don't do any type-checking. It will make errors better ('This function needs a boolean parameter' versus 'Expecting "true" or "false" or "<token> and" or 101 other possibilities'.) And allows the parser to stay focused on one task which is difficult enough: converting text into a parse tree.
2. During the validation phase, do not modify the parse tree. If you need to annotate each node with a type, put it into a map from parse tree node -> type, not into a field in each node. Put any state you need (e.g. scope for resolving identifiers) into a temporary state that exists only during validation (think of the visitor pattern). And definitely do not do any tree-surgery. If you need to rewrite the tree, do it post validation. (In the planner, or just before planning, is a good time.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object.
On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great comments.
> One particular high-level comment that Julian made is a criticism that I
> have made in the past of other projects. It is probably good for my
> character to be on the receiving side of this criticism for once.
> The question is why should we use/invent a new concrete syntax when JSON
> would do just as well (I am dropping the XML part of the suggestion due to
> known prejudices on this list).
> I don't have a good answer to this question. It makes certain problems
> quite a bit easier. Moreover, I have said in the past that it is nuts to
> re-invent concrete syntax for config files and extension languages like
> My course going forward is that I think I will put down both syntaxes and
> let folks form their own opinion. Using JSON will definitely move things
> ahead more quickly since other folks have done the parser for us.
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Julian Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Great start. I've made some comments on the doc.
>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The design for the logical plan is coming together. Anybody should be
>>> to get to the interim design document at
>>> You should also be able to see the discussion so far. Many thanks to
>>> Timothy Chen for kibitzing very well as I wrote. His astute observations
>>> and questions were critical.
>>> I have to go sleep now, but it would be great to see progress on this
>>> I sleep. Remember that comments and questions are as valuable (or more
>>> than text. Remember also, this document has a complete history so we can
>>> reconstruct it no matter what happens.
>>> I would particularly like eyes on this (if practical) from Camuel, Jason,
>>> Gera and Julian Hyde. They have had some very good thoughts about this
>>> layer in the past and probably will spot several errors in what I have
>>> The plan for this document as it stabilizes is to put it into the
>>> under the documentation area. WE will probably want to do that before it
>>> really is done to make sure that people can find it easily and to ensure
>>> checkpoint is in Apache-land.
>>> See y'all tomorrow.
Timothy Chen 2012-10-12, 19:00
Ted Dunning 2012-10-12, 19:04
Julian Hyde 2012-10-12, 19:13
Camuel Gilyadov 2012-10-14, 14:25