avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Massie <m...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Avro governance and Avro Enhancement Proposals
Date Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:51:21 GMT
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org> wrote:

> On 06/04/2010 06:29 PM, Matt Massie wrote:
>> I would like to see us be a little more of a think-do-acrocy when it comes
>> to important, high-level components of Avro (e.g. light-weight RPC).  It
>> would be nice to have some simple consensus before code starts getting
>> slung
>> around;
> I'd rather we have proofs of concept before we standardize.  I often find
> design issues while implementing.  I like to see two working implementations
> before we promote something as an interoperability standard.  Little else of
> substance has gone into the spec until it's been implemented twice.

Of course we should have proofs of concept and I agree that you can find
design issues while implementing ideas.  You can also find design issues by
having more than one person review the design before it's implemented.

I'm happy to drop my support for AEPs.  The main reason I supported them in
the first place is that I felt they would be a good way of fostering
communication.  If the team finds no value in them, then we should drop the
idea for now.

> otherwise, we'll see things in our spec like "The double is
>> converted into a 64-bit integer using a method equivalent to Java's
>> doubleToLongBits and then encoded in little-endian format."  Not to say we
>> would ever do such a thing.  :)
> I don't see a fundamental problem with that.  It's a link to clear,
> detailed documentation that describes a standard for serializing infinities
> and NaNs, using zeroed mantissas.  If you'd rather make the spec more
> standalone, then feel free to update that passage with these details.  But
> there's nothing Java-specific in it.  This is similar to the link to
> Protocol Buffers to define zig-zag encoding.  It's perhaps lazy writing, but
> I don't think it's indicative of a technically flawed specification.  Do
> you?

I do not think it indicates a technically flawed specification.


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