hadoop-zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond.
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:42:04 GMT
Fernando Padilla wrote:
> So it sounds like we're in agreement ( at lease the few in this 
> discussion ).  But have we heard from the actual developers?  What are 
> their preferences or plans?  Or would they like patches?

As I stated earlier in this thread we're planning to stay with ant for 
many reasons, but in particular; 1) current build process works, 2) 
current build is based on how hadoop projects in general (core for 
example) is currently doing builds. By using the same process/toolset we 
have many benefits - in particular being able to essentially "clone" the 
core release process, saving us much time/effort.

Patrick

> 
> Jake Thompson wrote:
>> Hi Hiram,
>> I actually am just a user of zookeeper, I am not a "member" as of 
>> yet.  I am
>> also a user of maven and ant and have been using both for many years.
>>
>> So while I would say it is never a bad decision to move to maven, it 
>> isn't
>> always a needed decision.
>>
>> A standard build structure makes sense if you were building zookeeper
>> yourself, but I don't beleive you would be doing that.  So that leaves 
>> the
>> creation and building of your own projects like an ear, war, JBI, 
>> etc.  The
>> problem with zookeeper is that there is no required project structure.
>> There is no zar that is to say.
>>
>> I personally have a mavenized war project that I am using zookeeper in 
>> and I
>> also have a hand rolled CL java program that uses it and is build with 
>> ant.
>> For both of these I just needed to copy one jar into my lib.
>> As far as dependency management, since zookeeper is so simple the only
>> requirement is log4j, not really needing any complex dependency tools 
>> there.
>>
>> As far as modularity, again I see zookeeper being part of larger 
>> modules, so
>> I don't know if we can draw a common modular zookeeper application
>> structure.
>>
>> Maven is a great tool and can help alot, but I personally don't see it as
>> synonymous with modern java development.
>>
>> -Jake
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Hiram Chirino 
>> <hiram@hiramchirino.com>wrote:
>>
>>> It would help new developers work with your project.  Maven provides a
>>> a broad set of tools that lots of java developers have come to expect
>>> out of a build system.  Incorporating those tools manually into an Ant
>>> based build would be very time consuming and make the build complex to
>>> maintain.
>>>
>>> For example, in addition the standard build and package aspects of
>>> build, folks expect the build system to:
>>> - support generating the IDE integration files (Idea, eclipse, etc.).
>>> - Run static analysis tools like find bugs
>>> - Run test coverage reports
>>> - Deployment to central servers
>>> - License Checking
>>> - Artifact signing
>>>
>>> And most importantly, they want a standard way of doing all that.
>>>
>>> Maven also encourages modularity in the architecture by making it easy
>>> build multiple modules/jar files and easily describing the
>>> dependencies between then.  And once you go modular, you will see how
>>> folks start contributing alternative implementations of existing
>>> modules.  Copying a module and it's build setup is easy to do with
>>> maven..  A bit harder with something like ant since it's kinda
>>> monolithic.
>>>
>>> Ant was a great tool so if you guys want to stick to your guns that's
>>> cool.  But in this day and age, using a ant based open source project
>>> is kinda like it was when we used make several years back to build
>>> java projects.  Works fine, but dated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Jake Thompson <jake@jakethompson.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It is quiet around here, I am new, could you please explain why you 
>>>> feel
>>> a
>>>> Maven build structure is needed?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone out there?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Congrats on the release.  Now that has been completed, I'd like to

>>>>>> see
>>>>>> if you guys are willing to revisit the issue of a maven based build.
>>>>>> If yes, I'd be happy to assist making that happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Our first official Apache release has shipped and I'm already

>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>> forward to 3.1.0. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In particular I believe we should look at the following for 3.1.0:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) there are a number of issues that we're targeted to 3.1.0
during
>>> the
>>>>>>> 3.0.0 cycle. We need to review and address these.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) system test. During 3.0.0 we made significant improvements
to our
>>>>> test
>>>>>>> environment. However we still lack a large(r) scale system test
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>>> It would be great if we could simulate large scale use over 10s
or
>>> 100s
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> machines (ensemble + clients). We need some sort of framework
for
>>> this,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> of course tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) operations documentation. In general docs were greatly 
>>>>>>> improved in
>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>> over 2.x. One area we are still lacking is operations docs for
>>>>>>> design/management of a ZK cluster.
>>>>>>> see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-160
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) JMX. Documentation needs to be written & the code
>>> reviewed/improved.
>>>>>>> Moving to Java6 should (afaik) allow us to take advantage of

>>>>>>> improved
>>>>> JMX
>>>>>>> spec not available in 5. We should also consider making JMX the
>>> default
>>>>>>> rather than optional (ie you get JMX by default when ZK server
is
>>>>> started).
>>>>>>> We need to ensure that ops can monitor/admin ZK using JMX.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5) (begin) multi-tenancy support. A number of users have expressed
>>>>> interest
>>>>>>> in being able to deploy ZK as a service in a cloud. Multi-tenancy
>>>>> support
>>>>>>> would be a huge benefit (quota, qos, namespace partitioning of

>>>>>>> nodes,
>>>>>>> billing, etc...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course ZooKeeper is open to submissions in that aren't on
this
>>> list.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you have any suggestions please feel free to enter a JIRA or

>>>>>>> submit a
>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Additionally I'd like to see us move to an 8 week release cycle.

>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> updated the JIRA version list to reflect this. Due to the holiday
>>> season
>>>>>>> approaching I've listed 3.1.0 with a ship date of Jan 19th. (see
the
>>>>> roadmap
>>>>>>> on the JIRA).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have any questions/comments please reply to this email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>  Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message