I could include perl... I do have thrift compiled on my build VM with perl enabled.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM, David Medinets <david.medin...@gmail.com> wrote: > How come perl is getting no love? > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote: >> >>> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled >>> versions are already in the proxy jar, >>> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the ability >>> to produce ruby and python bindings, >>> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user (though >>> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most common), >>> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the >>> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be >>> sufficient. >>> >>> >>> 1)That works. I should've caught that when I was in the proxy last and I >> didn't.Thanks for that. >> 2) Do you mean packagers as in people who might make an official release? >> I would think these are the only people that "really" matter, and thus I >> would expect them to be able to build a full distributionthat include these >> bindings. It might be nice to be able to create a packaging for each >> language (gem, egg, etc); but until we have some sort of packaging, I'd >> really like to see theruby and pythonsources included even in the binary >> dist. >> 3)True, but I'd rather set the bar as low as possible for people who just >> want to play around in a scripting language with Accumulo. >> 4) Definitely want to make sure it's included. >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on other languages that thrift supports that >> we should also create bindings for? I concur with your opinion on Ruby and >> Python, but I wonder if there's something else that people would also like. >>
