Berlin Buzzwords 2011 - CfP is open now!
Hey folks, I'm happy to announce the Berlin Buzzwords 2011, the second edition of the successful conference on scalability, data processing, storage and search technology in Berlin, Germany. Call for Presentations Berlin Buzzwords - http://berlinbuzzwords.de Berlin Buzzwords 2011 - Search, Store, Scale -- 6/7 June 2011 The event will comprise presentations on scalable data processing. We invite you to submit talks on the topics: * IR / Search - Lucene, Solr, katta, ElasticSearch or comparable solutions * NoSQL - like CouchDB, MongoDB, Jackrabbit, HBase and others * Hadoop - Hadoop itself, MapReduce, Cascading or Pig and relatives * Closely related topics not explicitly listed above are welcome. We are looking for presentations on the implementation of the systems themselves, real world applications and case studies. Important Dates (all dates in GMT +2) * Submission deadline: March 1st 2011, 23:59 MEZ * Notification of accepted speakers: March 22th, 2011, MEZ. * Publication of final schedule: April 5th, 2011. * Conference: June 6/7. 2011 High quality, technical submissions are called for, ranging from principles to practice. We are looking for real world use cases, background on the architecture of specific projects and a deep dive into architectures built on top of e.g. Hadoop clusters. Proposals should be submitted at http://berlinbuzzwords.de/content/cfp-0 no later than March 1st, 2011. Acceptance notifications will be sent out soon after the submission deadline. Please include your name, bio and email, the title of the talk, a brief abstract in English language. Please indicate whether you want to give a lightning (10min), short (20min) or long (40min) presentation and indicate the level of experience with the topic your audience should have (e.g. whether your talk will be suitable for newbies or is targeted for experienced users.) If you'd like to pitch your brand new product in your talk, please let us know as well - there will be extra space for presenting new ideas, awesome products and great new projects. The presentation format is short. We will be enforcing the schedule rigorously. If you are interested in sponsoring the event (e.g. we would be happy to provide videos after the event, free drinks for attendees as well as an after-show party), please contact us. Follow @hadoopberlin on Twitter for updates. Tickets, news on the conference, and the final schedule are be published at http://berlinbuzzwords.de. Program Chairs: Isabel Drost Jan Lehnardt Simon Willnauer Please re-distribute this CfP to people who might be interested. Contact us at: newthinking communications GmbH Schönhauser Allee 6/7 10119 Berlin, Germany Julia Gemählich Isabel Drost +49(0)30-9210 596
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1 Incubating, RC8
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Koji Sekiguchi k...@r.email.ne.jp wrote: (11/01/17 17:04), Karl Wright wrote: C'mon, guys - we just need two more binding PMC votes... Karl On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Karl Wrightdaddy...@gmail.com wrote: RC8 is ready. This fixes the problems found in CONNECTORS-149. Find it at: http://people.apache.org/~kwright/apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating The svn tag URL is http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/tags/release-0.1-incubating-RC8 Please evaluate the candidate, and if you find it OK then vote. I've completed my review of the deletion/expiration code, and although there are a couple of other tickets from that review, they do not (in my opinion) warrant holding the release. +1 from me. Karl Hi Karl, +1. ran test, javadoc, rat-sources, etc on my Mac and looked at *.txt. Looks fine. Sorry for the late vote. here is the 3rd binding vote +1 that release looks good to me. simon Koji -- http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
Re: [VOTE] Select a name to possibly replace Apache Connectors Framework
In that order: Maniplex Manicon Connex simon On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: ManifoldCF -Grant On Sep 23, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Karl Wright wrote: Folks, Grant feels we would have a better chance of graduating from incubation without changes if we adopt a new name. There will thus be two votes. First vote is designed to arrive at a name, and the second vote will be on whether to use that highest-point name instead of Apache Connectors Framework. Because the list is quite long this time, please select your favorite 8 choices, in order of preference. If you submit duplicate choices, only the first of each duplicate will be counted, and the others will receive zero points. So it is in your interest to not select any duplicates. All of these choices have been already screened to fulfill specific criteria, such as avoidance of trademarks or heavily used words. The list of candidates is: Ayvitraya Conex Connex Connie Connx Contango Conton Contor Contour Conx Heterolink Heterosource Heteroweb Manicon ManifoldCF Manifolio Manilink Maniplex Manisource Maniweb Multicon Multiconnect Multiconnex Ralph Reconto RepoMan Repositor Recon Reconex Reconn Reconnex Reconnx Reconx Let the voting begin! Karl -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Pick your preferred name
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote: ACF passed the Incubator vote. My question to the community is do you want me to go to the Board and ask for advice on this since the Board ultimately approves any podling graduating? One Director weighed in on the vote saying the Board wouldn't care, but in my view it was not an official opinion. I was actually thinking about asking the board for two things: 1. View of the name 2. Whether they have guidance on our repeated request about NTLM and it's inclusion in any ACF release. I believe someone was slated to engage with us a few months back, but I don't believe anyone has reached out to us yet. Thoughts? This whole name vote / discussion created lots of noise - we finally got to a decision and we should make sure it won't prevent us from graduation. Loosing a name during grad. process would be horrible IMO. +1 -Grant On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Karl Wright wrote: Voting is now closed. Final tally (which only counts Robert's first choice and not all three): Apache Connectors Framework 15 Apache Manifold 11 Apache Yukon 9 Apache Macon 4 Apache ManifoldCF 3 Apache Omni 1 Apache Acromantula 1 Apache Lukon 1 Karl -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: About name change
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: On Aug 26, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote: Is it clear that ACF is dead? The concern raised was that it implied something that connected lots of stuff together, and that's not what it was. But I think that that IS what it is, so the poster knew little or nothing about the project, and was operating from ignorance. Does it make sense to clarify what ACF does to the general list first? I think it is worthwhile. You want to take a crack at it? Absolutely +1 - I just have the impression that people are already biased by Tomcat Connector etc. but I will be a supporter of Apache Connector FW, no doubt. If it is not an option we can still discuss here! simon Karl On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey folks, I was following the discussion about changing the name to Apache Connector Framework and the late response from people on gene...@. Obviously we need to decide on something else than Apache Connectors Framework since many people had concerns about the name and possible confusion. I have the impression we should first collect some suggestions about alternative names here before we continue discussion on the gene...@. Once we have a name we all agreed on and doesn't apply to the concerns others had we should go back and discuss further. Some folks suggested a more abstract name like Apache Connecto which I personally like (not necessarily Connecto but a more abstract name. Such names have many advantages as people remember short names and they are less ambiguous. Any suggestions, thoughts? simon -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Jettro Coenradie jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl wrote: If we are changing stuff can we also use more descriptive names. Not Use LCF 4 to 5 times in a different Package. Use something like ACFAgent and ACFCrawler +1 for that too! simon On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Jettro Coenradie jettro.coenra...@gridshore.nl wrote: +1 for a complete change On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.comwrote: +1 to renaming the package - nows the time. - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile) On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com wrote: +1 -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:49 PM To: connectors-dev connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Need an opinion, on whether to change package or not Consider this an official request for a vote. +1 indicates you think we should change the following in the source code, as soon as is practical: org.apache.lcf.xxx - org.apache.acf.xxx All classes LCF.java and LCFException.java should change to ACF.java and ACFException.java Bear in mind that users of ACF/LCF who currently have existing database instances will need to reinitialize those instances if we do this change. This is because the class names of connectors are stored in the database when the connector is registered. (FWIW, my vote on this is -1. It doesn't seem worth the disruption. But I will of course abide by the consensus.) Vote will be considered closed by Wednesday evening, so vote early (and often. ;-)) Karl -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl -- Jettro Coenradie http://www.gridshore.nl
Re: Project status and name
+1 On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com wrote: +1 for ACF. -- Jack Krupansky -- From: karl.wri...@nokia.com Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Project status and name I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status. Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF. Karl From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupan...@lucidimagination.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Project status and name Any consensus on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project status as no longer incubating under Lucene? -- Jack Krupansky -- From: Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Project status and name I'd leave it open for another day or two. -Grant On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor open for other proposals for a while? Karl -Original Message- From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Project status and name On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, karl.wri...@nokia.com karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: Folks, Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of LCF being a subproject, Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it, but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now anyway. FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects, with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own management anyway. and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note that this status change would be theoretically independent of the project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at that time as well. There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should change the name, and if so, what to. FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is Apache Connectors Framework. I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which simply isn't true. I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is going to be done. -Grant -- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: nightly builds
I am familiar with hudson so I can figure out how to get hudson carma. I guess I don't need to be a PMC anymore to do that, I will figure out simon On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:49 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: Once again, I am bringing up the subject of nightly builds and javadoc for LCF. Is there anyone on this list who is familiar enough with apache infrastructure to set up a Hudson build, a la solr? (Uwe, are you listening? :-) ) Any assistance, pointers, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Karl
Re: Branch for ticket CONNECTORS-40?
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:19 AM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: I think the best way to work on ticket CONNECTORS-40 is to create an svn branch for work on it. I'm planning on naming the branch: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/branches/CONNECTORS-40 Any objections? +1 - we just had a discussion about using branches more frequently. for larger issues this is completely fine! simon Karl
Re: Basic core testing infrastructure
I have to admit I don't know much about the connectors but this sounds like connectors heavily rely on postgresql. Karl, is it somehow feasible to abstract this out to work with more than just postgresql in production? Maybe making different test-backends pluggable would be a win-win for tests and the project itself. Correct me if I'm wrong but I as a user would appreciate if I could start it up with a derby DB by default without the hassle of installing postgres. Self-contained testing is the way to go here or try mocking things out if you can / want to. simon On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:54 PM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: Hi Robert, The dependency on postgresql is indeed mainly performance, as you say, although there are a few kinds of queries that I am sure are somewhat postgresql-specific at this point. These are mainly for the reporting features, though. So your idea could work in a limited way. Obviously an end-to-end test would be the best, though. But something is better than nothing. Karl -Original Message- From: ext Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 3:43 PM To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Basic core testing infrastructure Hi Karl, Just a question, I read all the warnings about how dependent LCF is on postgres, but how much of this is really only about performance? When I look at the code it seems like there is enough abstraction you could add support for say, hsqldb or similar, even if its only for testing purposes? This way you could create a 'new world' for each test, rather than worrying about cleaning up the database etc. I admit I don't know if what I am saying is even close to practical as far as how dependent things are on postgres, but it might be an idea to make testing simpler. On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:49 AM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: To all you lurking Solr committers out there, I would like to throw some cycles towards at least getting Solr-style unit tests set up for LCF, running under Junit or something like it. My thoughts were as follows: (1) We presume a blank, already-installed version of Postgresql, configured to listen on port 5432, with a standard superuser name and password; (2) We do not attempt to test the UI at this time, because that would involve presuming an app server was installed, and would also require me to port my simple browser simulator from python to Java. Or maybe we can do this later? (3) The filesystem connector only would be used by the core tests. The question is, does this fit well with the Solr testing infrastructure? Is there a document describing that infrastructure and how to most effectively write tests for it? What are the standard pre/post-test cleanup semantics for the Solr tests, for instance? (The MetaCarta tests do a preclean stage, which removes any crap leftover from a previous failure of the same test, for instance, and also always clean up after themselves upon success.) I know the projects are quite different, but if I understand the assumptions and the how to's for Solr, it will help me enormously I think... Thanks, Karl -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
