Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Is C++ code still part of 1.5 release?
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Sorry to be late to the party, but did we come to a consensus on this?
> Seems like we still have opinions both ways as to whether the cpp code
> should be packaged with the binary distribution. I would argue that cpp
> code is a special case, since the build is so platform dependent. It's
> generally hard to distribute the right .so files to cover all platforms,
> and we have run into many cases in practice where the native maps don't
> work out of the box. While downloading the source and untarring it over the
> same directory is not too much extra work,
I'm neutral on whether the source files should be included in the binary
artifacts.  However, I wanted to point out that it sounds like untarring
the source over binaries is not the recommended procedure.  So what is the
recommended procedure?  Untar the source, navigate to the c++ directory,
build, and drop the resulting .so file into an existing binary
installation?  Or just build your own binary tarball from source?

Billie
it seems like the only argument
> not to package the native source code with the binary distribution is a
> dogmatic one. Are there any practical reasons why it would be bad to add
> the cpp file to the bin distribution?
>

> Adam
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Rumor has it that one of the core developers is irrationally hostile to
> > perl.
> >
> > And octal.
> >
> > And xml.
> >
> > He's just old and cranky.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM, David Medinets <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > How come perl is getting no love?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled
> > > >> versions are already in the proxy jar,
> > > >> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the
> ability
> > > >> to produce ruby and python bindings,
> > > >> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user
> (though
> > > >> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most
> common),
> > > >> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the
> > > >> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be
> > > >> sufficient.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  1)That works. I should've caught that when I was in the proxy last
> > and
> > > I
> > > > didn't.Thanks for that.
> > > > 2) Do you mean packagers as in people who might make an official
> > release?
> > > > I would think these are the only people that "really" matter, and
> thus
> > I
> > > > would expect them to be able to build a full distributionthat include
> > > these
> > > > bindings. It might be nice to be able to create a packaging for each
> > > > language (gem, egg, etc); but until we have some sort of packaging,
> I'd
> > > > really like to see theruby and pythonsources included even in the
> > binary
> > > > dist.
> > > > 3)True, but I'd rather set the bar as low as possible for people who
> > just
> > > > want to play around in a scripting language with Accumulo.
> > > > 4) Definitely want to make sure it's included.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone have an opinion on other languages that thrift supports
> > that
> > > > we should also create bindings for? I concur with your opinion on
> Ruby
> > > and
> > > > Python, but I wonder if there's something else that people would also
> > > like.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>