hadoop-mapreduce-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Owen O'Malley (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (MAPREDUCE-1638) Divide MapReduce into API and implementation source trees
Date Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:40:27 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1638?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12850462#action_12850462

Owen O'Malley commented on MAPREDUCE-1638:

I support splitting the libraries out to their own source tree. That both supports important
use cases (MAPREDUCE-1478) and enforces good style (MAPREDUCE-1453).

After considering it, I don't think that we should separate the api from the impls. In general,
that makes more sense if you have multiple implementations of the api. I'm also worried that
there would be a circular dependence between the two jars.

I agree that we need to make the line stronger, but maybe it would be better to move the implementations
into new packages?

Leave all of the API classes alone and for the implementation classes move them as:

org.apache.hadoop.mapred.* - > org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.impl.*
org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.* -> org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.impl.*

> Divide MapReduce into API and implementation source trees
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: MAPREDUCE-1638
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-1638
>             Project: Hadoop Map/Reduce
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: build, client
>            Reporter: Tom White
>            Assignee: Tom White
> I think it makes sense to separate the MapReduce source into public API and implementation
trees. The public API could be broken further into kernel and library trees.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message