On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Adam Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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, I'm neutral on whether the source files should be included in the binary artifacts. However, I wanted to point out that it sounds like untarring the source over binaries is not the recommended procedure. So what is the recommended procedure? Untar the source, navigate to the c++ directory, build, and drop the resulting .so file into an existing binary installation? Or just build your own binary tarball from source? Billie 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > How come perl is getting no love? > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > > 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. > > > > > > > > > >
