What did Spark use instead of fastutil?

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:

> A word of caution -- fastutil is a massive library, 20MB or so and 10K
> files if I recall correctly. It was pulled out of Spark just because
> it was making the deployment jars huge (and wasn't used much). Make
> sure it's worth it.
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Robert Waury
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Okay,
> >
> > I'm going to add fastutil to the dependencies in my next pull request.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Robert
> > On Jun 20, 2014 8:52 AM, "Sebastian Schelter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for fastutils
> >>
> >>
> >> On 06/20/2014 08:50 AM, Robert Metzger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Robert,
> >>>
> >>> The Apache Commons Primitives Collection project seems to be pretty
> >>> inactive. The last release was in 2003, there are many dead links on
> the
> >>> website. I would not suggest to use it.
> >>> HPPC and fastutil seem pretty similar to me. Both have a somewhat
> active
> >>> mailing list and up-to-date releases. Apache Giraph is using fastutil.
> >>> In my opinion, its up to you to decide what you want to use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Robert Waury <
> >>> [email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm currently working on some code in Flink's runtime and want to use
> >>>> some
> >>>> Java Primitive Collections to improve performance.
> >>>>
> >>>> As fas as I can see no Primitive Collections library is in the
> >>>> dependencies
> >>>> so I wanted to ask if anybody has any preferences or input on which
> >>>> library
> >>>> the project should use.
> >>>>
> >>>> The viable candidates (from a licensing perspective at least) are:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Apache Commons Primitives Collections
> >>>> - High Performance Primitives Collections for Java (HPPC)
> >>>> - fastutil
> >>>>
> >>>> They are all APL 2.0 licensed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since I'm probably not the only one who is going to use Primitive
> >>>> Collections I don't want to introduce a new dependency without any
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Robert
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Reply via email to