incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:06:37 GMT
Folks,

A bit of back story of a slightly similar situation before. We have
had Axis/Axis2 projects in Apache for a long time and along came the
XFire proposal (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CeltiXfireProposal)
and we had the same kind of discussions as i see here.

Flash forward, Both Axis2 and CXF are flourishing, there are folks who
are working on components that get used by both projects like
XmlSchema and WSS4J.

So my 2 cents, take a deep breath and think of ways to collaborate
even if it means 2 code bases with some common code, it does not have
to be one code base for one situation/scenario. Do reach out to each
other, hang out on each others mailing lists to make that
collaboration happen.

thanks,
dims

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
> <billie.j.rinaldi@ugov.gov> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is not a correct characterization.
>>
>> Would the following alteration be more accurate?
>> "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into HBase.  However,
the amount of work required at the current time would slow development of HBase and Accumulo
considerably."
>>
>
> From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence
> above comes across as a setup for our not integrating.
>
>
>>> But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when
>>> described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code
>>> is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a
>>> piece of work.
>>
>> Yes, the implementation is very different, and we had difficulty capturing that in
the proposal.
>>
>
> Understood.
>
>
>>> hbase TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility
>>
>> Some types of functions (e.g. query-time aggregation) can be implemented in both
coprocessors and iterators, but coprocessors will not easily support the entirety of iterator
functionality.  Nor is the reverse true.  The two models present different programming mechanisms
for server-side processing.  It would be useful to have both in the same project.
>>
>
> I'll take your word for it not having seen the code.
>
> St.Ack
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message