Folks, Sorry to be late to the party, but did we come to a consensus on this? Seems like we still have opinions both ways as to whether the cpp code should be packaged with the binary distribution. I would argue that cpp code is a special case, since the build is so platform dependent. It's generally hard to distribute the right .so files to cover all platforms, and we have run into many cases in practice where the native maps don't work out of the box. While downloading the source and untarring it over the same directory is not too much extra work, it seems like the only argument not to package the native source code with the binary distribution is a dogmatic one. Are there any practical reasons why it would be bad to add the cpp file to the bin distribution?
Adam On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Eric Newton <eric.new...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rumor has it that one of the core developers is irrationally hostile to > perl. > > And octal. > > And xml. > > He's just old and cranky. > > -Eric > > > 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. > > > > > >
