Rumor has it that one of the core developers is irrationally hostile to perl.
And octal. And xml. He's just old and cranky. -Eric On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM, David Medinets <david.medin...@gmail.com>wrote: > How come perl is getting no love? > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/12/13 11:45 PM, Christopher wrote: > > > >> 1) we don't need to include java bindings for the proxy; compiled > >> versions are already in the proxy jar, > >> 2) not all packagers will even have installed thrift with the ability > >> to produce ruby and python bindings, > >> 3) these may or may not be helpful to any particular end user (though > >> it's probably safe to assume ruby and python will be the most common), > >> 4) we're not including the proxy.thrift file, which is perhaps the > >> most important file for the proxy, and including it should be > >> sufficient. > >> > >> > >> 1)That works. I should've caught that when I was in the proxy last and > I > > didn't.Thanks for that. > > 2) Do you mean packagers as in people who might make an official release? > > I would think these are the only people that "really" matter, and thus I > > would expect them to be able to build a full distributionthat include > these > > bindings. It might be nice to be able to create a packaging for each > > language (gem, egg, etc); but until we have some sort of packaging, I'd > > really like to see theruby and pythonsources included even in the binary > > dist. > > 3)True, but I'd rather set the bar as low as possible for people who just > > want to play around in a scripting language with Accumulo. > > 4) Definitely want to make sure it's included. > > > > Does anyone have an opinion on other languages that thrift supports that > > we should also create bindings for? I concur with your opinion on Ruby > and > > Python, but I wonder if there's something else that people would also > like. > > >
