feat(isthmus): update to calcite 1.39

[mbwhite]

(replacement for PR #361

As a result of an (accidental) upgrade Calcite 1.39; conversions via Isthmus started to report that table names where unknown;

Isthmus had an external API that allows tables to be lookup via calls to a function - dynamic or 'lazy' lookup. A special subclass of the CalciteSimpleSchema was created to support this. This special subclass had to be in the same package as the CalciteSimpleSchema as it took advantage of being able to override a number of protected methods.

Calcite 1.39.0 introduced similar support for 'lazy' table lookups; that implementation, though changed the protected methods sufficiently Isthmus now failed (indeed rebuilding the code fails to compile).

This PR removes the special subclass, and allows Ishtmus to work as before; with the work down to remove the external function based APIs there was only 1 location left where this special schema class was used.

This has been altered to use a new class that implements a Calcite Schema; it does it in a much simpler way than the previously

[vbarua]

I have an alternative proposal for building CalciteSchemas in #391.

That one also handles nested schemas better, which the existing LookupCalciteSchema didn't really do.

[bestbeforetoday]

@vbarua Calcite 1.39.0 includes some fixes that enable several additional TPC-DS queries to be successfully handled by Isthmus. I have locally tested both this pull request and your pull request (with an additional update of the Calcite version), and both enable support of the additional TPC-DS queries.

Since this change appears to be roughly a subset of your change, would it make sense to merge this and then base your additional changes on top? Or if you prefer to go straight to your change, any outlook on when it can be merged? Is it just waiting on a reviewer to get to it?

[vbarua]

Or if you prefer to go straight to your change, any outlook on when it can be merged?

I would prefer to do this to avoid merging code which will then just be deleted or heavily modified. I've asked for a review in the Slack to hopefully move that PR along.

[mbwhite]

Closing this as the work has been done in other PRs.