hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ting(Goden) Yao" <t...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: PXF package namespace
Date Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:08:37 GMT
I feel "pxf" as acronym is fine for now.
In Ambari UI text, we have changed it to "hawq extension framework".

-Goden

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:58 AM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> Hi Shivram,
>
> I suggest we explore this topic a bit more on general@incubator.
> Since any renames like that could be painful enough, I'd rather
> we take our time to see what options are available to us.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Shivram Mani <shivram.mani@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > There are many other projects (eg: zookeeper) that have moved to a top
> > level project over time.
> > Lets revisit this in the future if it becomes a top level project and my
> > guess is even the name PXF(pivotal extenstion framework) wouldn't be apt
> > then. Will stick to org.apache.hawq.pxf until then.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Caleb Welton <cwelton@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The main precedent that immediately came to my mind was HCatalog.
> HCatalog
> >> used to be in the org.apache.hcatalog then migrated to
> >> org.apache.hive.hcatalog when it became part of the hive project.
> >>
> >> On one hand I prefer org.apache.pxf because it allows for the potential
> to
> >> be an independent project in the future, but given that there is no
> Apache
> >> PXF project this doesn't yet seem appropriate.  If we follow the
> precedent
> >> set by hcatalog then org.apache.hawq.pxf would seem to be the best
> >> reflection of the current state of the world.
> >>
> >> -Caleb
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Shivram Mani <shivram.mani@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We are in the process of changing the package namespace for PXF. It
> >> > currently uses com.pivotal.hawq and we will be moving this to
> org.apache.
> >> > After a brief chat with Roman, it seems more future proof if we use
> >> > org.apache.pxf instead of org.apache.hawq.pxf. If PXF were to
> extended to
> >> > work with any alternate sink (not necessarily HAWQ) org.apache.pxf
> would
> >> be
> >> > more relevant.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts ?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > shivram mani
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > shivram mani
>

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