accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Medinets <david.medin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
Date Mon, 13 May 2013 21:29:25 GMT
How come perl is getting no love?


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled
>> versions are already in the proxy jar,
>> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the ability
>> to produce ruby and python bindings,
>> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user (though
>> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most common),
>> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the
>> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be
>> sufficient.
>>
>>
>>  1)That works. I should've caught that when I was in the proxy last and I
> didn't.Thanks for that.
> 2) Do you mean packagers as in people who might make an official release?
> I would think these are the only people that "really" matter, and thus I
> would expect them to be able to build a full distributionthat include these
> bindings. It might be nice to be able to create a packaging for each
> language (gem, egg, etc); but until we have some sort of packaging, I'd
> really like to see theruby and pythonsources included even in the binary
> dist.
> 3)True, but I'd rather set the bar as low as possible for people who just
> want to play around in a scripting language with Accumulo.
> 4) Definitely want to make sure it's included.
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on other languages that thrift supports that
> we should also create bindings for? I concur with your opinion on Ruby and
> Python, but I wonder if there's something else that people would also like.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message