incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <>
Subject Re: Accumulo incubator proposal: Statement of Concern
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:14:26 GMT
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

>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


>> 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.


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

View raw message