On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcg...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes, it is going to be Akka if moving forward (at least not going to > introduce an actor framework to livy)
-1 on that. I don't see a reason to introduce a large and complex framework like Akka into Livy. What you propose can be achieved easily with existing Java libraries. > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Meisam Fathi <meisam.fa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That is true, but I was under the impression that this will be implemented >> with Akka (maybe because it is mentioned in the design doc). >> >> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM Marcelo Vanzin <van...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Meisam Fathi <meisam.fa...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > I do agree that actor based design is cleaner and more maintainable. >> But >> > we >> > > had to discard it because it adds more dependencies to Livy. >> > >> > I've been reading "actor system" as a design pattern, not as >> > introducing a new dependency to Livy. >> > >> > If the document is actually proposing using Akka (instead of just >> > using Akka as an example of an actor system implementation), then I'm >> > a -1 on that. >> > >> > -- >> > Marcelo >> > >> -- Marcelo
