Douglas Creager 2010-10-14, 01:45
Bruce Mitchener 2010-10-14, 02:01
> I didn't write the existing C library, but I've used it and done some work
> on it. I'm currently writing my own more minimal and more streamlined
> implementation of Avro in C ...
> The issues with glib specifically would be:
> - The license is not acceptable for use here. (LGPL)
> - It is much bigger than what is needed here.
> - Many of the things that make it more general would also make it slower
> than necessary. The existing C code isn't a speed demon either, but the C
> implementation should aim for solid performance.
Ha! Well you're certainly right that glib's not small. Are you sure
about the speed claims, though? Would it be worth banging out a LGPL,
glib-based prototype to do some initial tests?
Along those lines, you mention a new C implementation you're working on.
Is that something that you plan to fold back into the main libavro? Or
will it be separate? The spec provides a good basis for defining how
well different implementations interoperate, but so far it seems like
everything has been folded into the single, Apache-sponsored project.
Is there interest in having independent implementations?
Bruce Mitchener 2010-10-14, 02:56
Douglas Creager 2010-10-14, 03:49
Bruce Mitchener 2010-10-14, 03:58
Matt Massie 2010-10-14, 15:59
Douglas Creager 2010-10-15, 22:02