incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:16:43 GMT
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Davanum Srinivas <> wrote:
> 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 (
> 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.

There's another useful analogy with CXF. If a group of people showed
up with a proposal to make a brand new fork and launch on it, I for
one would politely ask them why they feel the need to diverge, and I
might hear something that disturbed me.

However, that's not the situation here. A community of developers
formed inside of a set of institutions that did not allow them to
interact with HBase. Now they exist, and their code exists, and their
rules have changed. They propose to join us. My reaction? "Wonderful!"
It may be that, over time, this group and the existing HBase group
will discover a commonality of interest and goal, and coalesce into
one big happy community. It may also be that differing priorities
won't lead in that direction.

> thanks,
> dims
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Stack <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <> 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:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> --
> Davanum Srinivas ::
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message