[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6685?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12934037#action_12934037
]
Arun C Murthy commented on HADOOP-6685:
---------------------------------------
bq. I have never proposed dropping SequenceFile. I have proposed that we not
extend it.
I don't understand that.
As I mentioned, there is too much data already in SequenceFile format -
objecting to maintaining it or extending in minor ways (in a compatible manner)
for legacy users is unreasonable, no?
bq. If we cannot agree on such a format, then we will be stuck adding no new
formats to the kernel but rather creating new formats in external projects.
Agreed. However, again, no one is proposing new formats here.
> Change the generic serialization framework API to use serialization-specific
> bytes instead of Map<String,String> for configuration
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-6685
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6685
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Owen O'Malley
> Assignee: Owen O'Malley
> Fix For: 0.22.0
>
> Attachments: libthrift.jar, serial.patch, serial4.patch,
> serial6.patch, serial7.patch, SerializationAtSummit.pdf
>
>
> Currently, the generic serialization framework uses Map<String,String> for
> the serialization specific configuration. Since this data is really internal
> to the specific serialization, I think we should change it to be an opaque
> binary blob. This will simplify the interface for defining specific
> serializations for different contexts (MAPREDUCE-1462). It will also move us
> toward having serialized objects for Mappers, Reducers, etc (MAPREDUCE-1183).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
