i think we need to move both of them out of contrib. they are just languishing there. i agree that they could be separate projects, but they are closer than may appear at a high level. the application that hedwig was designed for is using it as a write ahead log. like TeaKeeper shows often there is a requirement to both log and broadcast changes. In some sense we have this continuum: BookKeeper (single writer WAL), TeaKeeper (single writer WAL with broadcast), Hedwig (multiple writer WAL with broadcast). Hedwig is also tightly integrated with BookKeeper. The development community is also tightly integrated. i think there are valid reasons for doing an incubator project or for doing separate subprojects, but i think the best option for now would be to do a subproject under zookeeper (called either hedwig or bookkeeper) that would host both code bases.
ben On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Ivan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree about the separation of bookkeeper and hedwig. They solve very > different problems, so lumping them together feels clunky. Perhaps bookkeeper > could be moved out of zookeeper first, leaving hedwig in until there's more > community interest in it. > > -Ivan > > On 15 Mar 2011, at 23:58, Dhruba Borthakur wrote: > >> I am interested in contributing to the bookkeeper code. It would be nice to >> have a community around it. An incubator proposal sounds good, but the >> zk-subproject should also work well. It woud be nice to separate out hedwig >> and bookkeeper since they have quite different functionality. >> >> -dhruba >> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Mahadev Konar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I like the idea of BookKeeper/Hedwig being subprojects. >>> >>> thanks >>> mahadev >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm sorry for not replying before. I didn't feel that the message was >>> for >>>>> me, since it should be pretty obvious that I'm interested in those >>>>> projects. Here are some thoughts, though: >>>>> >>>>> - It would be really nice to have committers for bookkeeper/hedwig; >>>>> - It would be really nice to have independent releases for >>>>> bookkeeper/hedwig; >>>>> - It sounds like bookkeeper and hedwig don't always go together, and >>> hdfs >>>>> is an instance in which it happens. But, hedwig builds on top of >>> bookkeeper >>>>> (and other components), so using hedwig implies using bookkeeper. >>>>> Consequently, if we choose only one to be a main project, perhaps >>> bookkeeper >>>>> would be a better choice; >>>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps one could argue that bk/hedwig fall under "distributed system >>>> coordination" and therefore should be part of ZK? Or is that too much of >>> a >>>> stretch? ;-) >>>> >>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache ZooKeeper Project be and hereby is responsible >>>> for the creation and maintenance of software related to distributed >>> system >>>> coordination; and be it further >>>> >>>> >>>>> - I don't think we have anyone who could be a project lead for these >>>>> projects right now, so it could be a problem to split up at this point. >>> For >>>>> this reason, a zookeeper subproject sounds like a better option compared >>> to >>>>> incubator, unless we are able to find a project lead. >>>>> >>>>> -Flavio >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> i wanted to start a discussion about making hedwig and bookkeeper a >>>>> subproject. (actually pat started the discussion last month in general >>>>> about all of the contrib projects.) there are three questions, in my >>>>> mind, that we need to answer to move forward: >>>>> >>>>> 1) should it be a hedwig/bookkeeper subproject, or should there be two >>>>> separate projects? we need to build a developer community and i'm >>>>> wondering if we should try to build a single dev community or two. the >>>>> relationship is a bit asymmetrical: hedwig depends on bookkeeper, but >>>>> not visa-versa. i'm inclined to say we do a hedwig subproject and >>>>> include bookkeeper with it, but i don't feel strongly. >>>>> >>>>> 2) should we propose a subproject to zookeeper or to incubator? i'm a >>>>> bit more inclined to propose a zookeeper subproject simply because it >>>>> fits well with the zookeeper community, but it does introduce a bit >>>>> more overhead to the zookeeper PMC. >>>>> >>>>> 3) do we have the developer interest to make it happen in the first >>>>> place? i know we can get at least 3 initial committers from yahoo!, >>>>> but projects should be represented by multiple companies. (the goal is >>>>> at least 3.) so, is there interest in working on the project from >>>>> others? >>>>> >>>>> please comment. these are all open issues, so opinions are what i'm >>>>> looking for. if there isn't much discussion, i think that will >>>>> implicitly answer 3 :) >>>>> >>>>> thanx >>>>> ben >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *flavio* >>>>> *junqueira* >>>>> >>>>> research scientist >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> direct +34 93-183-8828 >>>>> >>>>> avinguda diagonal 177, 8th floor, barcelona, 08018, es >>>>> phone (408) 349 3300 fax (408) 349 3301 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Connect to me at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba > >
