Hi, just a note: Wouldn't it be better to talk about MapReduce as opposed to Hadoop? This means that for each algorithm implemented in Mahout it should be clearly stated wheter it is MapReduce based implementation or not (or using other ways to make it scalable). I can imagine it could be useful to abstract from Hadoop to the point where it would be possible to use different MapReduce providers. I am not sure wheter there is any consensus about how MapReduce interfaces API should look like but Mahout could be a good candidate for a project to define and create abstract MapReduce API.
Regards, Lukas On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see this as a critical issue. > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Isabel Drost <isa...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > but those systems always involve quite a bit of engineering to connect > > the > > > data fire-hoses into the right spigots. > > > > I wonder whether there is any way we can make that easier for users? We > > certainly cannot support all use cases, but at least for text mining we > > already have some glue code in place. > > > > > -- > Ted Dunning, CTO > DeepDyve >
