On Wednesday, May 11, 2011, Ian Holsman wrote:
> I think we need a 0.18 doc's as some people are still running this.
> other than that (and what is 'current'.. it should point to the stable
> release imho) I'm good with it.
There are some non trivial 0.19 clusters running too.
What is our defi
I'll be there, but only for the conference on Monday and Tuesday.
Doug
On 05/11/2011 12:31 PM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:08, Steve Loughran wrote:
>> On 11/05/2011 00:53, Ian Holsman wrote:
>>>
>>> If so.. I'll be there.. let's catch up.
>>>
>>> http://www.berlinbuzzwo
On 11/05/2011 22:24, Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
This is a really interesting topic! I completely agree that we need to get
ahead of this.
I would be really interested in learning of any experience other apache
projects, such as apache or tomcat have with these issues.
I don't know about apa
On 12/05/2011 03:26, M. C. Srivas wrote:
While the HCK is a great idea to check quickly if an implementation is
"compliant", we still need a written specification to define what is meant
by compliance, something akin to a set of RFC's, or a set of docs like the
IEEE POSIX specifications.
For
On 12/05/2011 00:20, Aaron Kimball wrote:
What does it mean to "implement" those interfaces? I'm +1 for a TCK-based
definition. In addition to statically implementing a set of interfaces, each
interface also implicitly includes a set of acceptable inputs and predicted
outputs (or ranges of output
While IANAL...
As long as any implementation follows Apache's license regarding derivative
works, it's fair game. (this is my understanding YMMV)
The APL is very liberal in what one can do with a derivative work...
Surely Apache has some lawyers who can summarize what is allowable when talking
I will be there Monday-Thursday.
Monday sounds good for food and beverages.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> I'll be there, but only for the conference on Monday and Tuesday.
>
> Doug
>
> On 05/11/2011 12:31 PM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:08, St
HCK and written specifications are not mutually exclusive. However, given
the evolving nature of Hadoop APIs, functional tests need to evolve as
well, and having them tied to a "current stable" version is easier to do
than it is to tie the written specifications.
- milind
--
Milind Bhandarkar
mb
On May 12, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> I think Sun NFS might be a good example of similar defacto standard, or MS
> SMB -it is up to others to show they are compatible with what is effective
> the reference implementation. Being closed source, there is no option for
> anyone to in
I will try to determine a location nearby the buzz, make a reservation
and post to the appropriate lists.
Bernd
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 17:44, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I will be there Monday-Thursday.
>
> Monday sounds good for food and beverages.
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Doug Cutting
Actually, I just heard from Isabel that there will be a Buzzwords barbecue
that evening.
Should we all just meet there and then adjourn for beers after dinner?
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Bernd Fondermann <
bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I will try to determine a location nearby
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 20:12, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Actually, I just heard from Isabel that there will be a Buzzwords barbecue
> that evening.
Sorry about that, I checked the programme and pinged Isabel to make
sure we don't get in conflict with the conf.
And I definitively don't want to miss tha
Hey,
Thanks to everyone who came out for the Apache Hadoop Hackathon yesterday in
Palo Alto and San Francisco. We had 35 people sign up from a great cross
section of companies: Yahoo!, Cloudera, Facebook, Apple, Twitter,
Foursquare, AOL, Ngmoco, StumbleUpon, Trend Micro, Conviva, and more. We had
TCK (or JCK initially) was done as a tool to basically compare Java
Lang specs with a particular implementation including but not limited
to an extensive suite of say compiler tests.
So I assume before we can embark on any sort of HCK suite some formal
specs would have to be defined. It's rather h
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:45, Milind Bhandarkar
wrote:
> HCK and written specifications are not mutually exclusive. However, given
> the evolving nature of Hadoop APIs, functional tests need to evolve as
I would actually expand it to 'functional and system tests' because
latter are capable of va
The problem with (only) specs is that they are written in natural
language, and subject to human interpretation, and since humans are bad at
natural language interpretation, this gives rise to something called
standards bodies and lawyers, and that has never been good for anyone in
the past ;-)
No
Cos,
Can you give me an example of a "system test" that is not a functional
test ? My assumption was that the functionality being tested is specific
to a component, and that inter-component interactions (that's what you
meant, right?) would be taken care by the public interface and semantics
of a
Did anybody propose natural language only specifications?
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Milind Bhandarkar wrote:
> The problem with (only) specs is that they are written in natural
> language, and subject to human interpretation,
>
Ok, my mistake. They have only asked for documented specifications. I may
have been influenced by all the specifications I have read. All of them
were in English, which is characterized as a natural language.
But then, if you are proposing a specification in a non-natural-language,
isn't that call
label:
print "+1";
goto label;
I could not agree more with everything you said steve! The Apache Hadoop
project should own the definition of Apache Hadoop. Hadoop is far from done.
The interfaces need to keep evolving to get to a place where we can be proud of
them.
I support "vendors" buil
I would say that an English spec with associated test suite is a middle
ground.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Milind Bhandarkar wrote:
> Ok, my mistake. They have only asked for documented specifications. I may
> have been influenced by all the specifications I have read. All of them
> were i
The way it has been done in JCK was a specs written in somewhat
formalized language and a tool (called testgen, written in Perl if I
remember correctly) which was dynamically generating a lot of lang
tests. I think this is a middle ground Milind has mentioned.
BTW, it was a _huge_ effort: Sun had
Certification semms like mission creep. Our mission is to produce
open-source software. If we wish to produce testing software, that
seems fine. But running a certification program for non-open-source
software seems like a different task.
The Hadoop mark should only be used to refer to open-sou
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 20:40, Milind Bhandarkar
wrote:
> Cos,
>
> Can you give me an example of a "system test" that is not a functional
> test ? My assumption was that the functionality being tested is specific
> to a component, and that inter-component interactions (that's what you
> meant, rig
Sure. As I said before, they are not mutually exclusive. Just stating my
experience that specs without a test suite are of no use. If I were to
prioritize, I would give priority to a TCK over natural-language specs.
That's all.
So far, I have seen many replacements for HDFS as InputFormat and
Outp
25 matches
Mail list logo
