Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-gora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-gora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 467D99685 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:14:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45672 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2012 18:14:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-gora-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45615 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jan 2012 18:14:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gora-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: gora-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list gora-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45607 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jan 2012 18:14:11 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:14:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.175] (HELO mail-we0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:14:05 +0000 Received: by werb12 with SMTP id b12so1273324wer.6 for ; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:13:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/j4jSLASG8Byb6ZbodDqeeE3hBTunJQr51fRwwCEpJo=; b=APVntQXEeYDjHcOkTmlVYX5sCD7NyRX7696JAXmZD4XJLl7g10O+e+HP6v2tSNGLqF cfoof9dl0XUDjPgd4KnOeSlOEddkrQYRMyjTU8u3+bSNs+FNX/TW8FjE/wZATYoJ5lPj QLw4d21zdv1Zh606ZjEWoXd0a9aeWbIfhe7MY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.94.97 with SMTP id db1mr3836922wib.16.1327169624130; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.69.212 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:13:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:13:44 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Difference between Avro SpecificCompiler & GoraCompiler From: Lewis John Mcgibbney To: gora-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442681a00c5e904b70dc288 --f46d0442681a00c5e904b70dc288 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Guys, Been messing around with the compiler today and got curious about some things. 1) As this thread states, what is the specific difference between our own compiler [1] implementation and the Avro SpecificCompiler [2] we have a choice of using via bin/gora specificcompiler? 2) I was going to suggest that we upgrade to Avro version 1.6.1 (most recently tagged stable), as the project seems to be more matured, there has also been some code refactoring going on. 3) I've attached a link [3] to the current SpecificCompiler class within the recent 1.6.1 release, even this class has increased in lines of code by around 50%, therefore I think there is more functionality to be had from upgrading. The reason I'm asking is that I've been working on GORA-27, however I wonder if it is better to work towards an implementation for Avro, and we could then rely on that implementation rather than writing one solely for Gora which can only be used here? This story, however falls through if there is a strong case for us maintaining our own compiler implementation. What do you guys think? [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/gora/trunk/gora-core/src/main/java/org/apache/gora/compiler/GoraCompiler.java?view=markup [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/avro/tags/release-1.3.3/lang/java/src/java/org/apache/avro/specific/SpecificCompiler.java?view=markup [3] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/avro/tags/release-1.6.1/lang/java/compiler/src/main/java/org/apache/avro/compiler/specific/SpecificCompiler.java?view=markup -- *Lewis* --f46d0442681a00c5e904b70dc288--