hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jay Booth <jaybo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Direction for Hadoop development
Date Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:06:36 GMT
a)  On the PB dependency..  can't we just use JSON and call it a day?  I
mean, we're gonna have a new dependency so that we can encode a single
tuple?  That doesn't even make engineering sense, let alone that the choice
of PB looks like a deliberate decision to try and tweak Doug's nose, whether
that was the intention or not.  Even if you could make a case for some very
minor benefit of using PB instead of one of the 3 serialization methods
already on the classpath, it's hard to see why it's worth going to the mat
over it.  And again, as a user, every additional classpath element in Hadoop
is a potential future conflict that I'll have to sort out for some
non-exciting business process I'm writing.

b)  Agreeing with Eric..  backwards compatibility is essential for sequence
file.  It seems to me that past a certain point, it's easier to just make a
new file format rather than cramming further functionality and
backwards-compatibility layers into the SequenceFile class, but as long as
it's backward compatible then I'm sure people will be fine.


On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Arun C Murthy <acm@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Eric Sammer wrote:
>
>  I'm a bit confused as to how this equates with sequence files being
>> deprecated or arrested. I tried to read HADOOP-6685 but there's a lot
>> of internal references and context I feel like I'm missing. Suffice it
>> to say, sequence files can *not* be broken for existing data for the
>> reasons everyone has stated. If we choose to focus development
>> elsewhere ("soft deprecate") or actively encourage users elsewhere
>> ("@Deprecated") is an issue I think we can sever from this discussion.
>>
>
> I'm surprised that your are confused.
>
> http://s.apache.org/h6685-veto
>
> Doug is very clear that he is vetoing the patch based on 2 reasons:
> a) dependency on PB
> b) extension to SequenceFile
>
> a) is technical, and we can debate about it.
>
> b) isn't. It's his 'vision' for the project, a vision which hasn't been
> ratified by the PMC.
>
> Arun

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