> I didn't write the existing C library, but I've used it and done some work > on it. I'm currently writing my own more minimal and more streamlined > implementation of Avro in C ... > > The issues with glib specifically would be: > > > - The license is not acceptable for use here. (LGPL) > - It is much bigger than what is needed here. > - Many of the things that make it more general would also make it slower > than necessary. The existing C code isn't a speed demon either, but the C > implementation should aim for solid performance.
Ha! Well you're certainly right that glib's not small. Are you sure about the speed claims, though? Would it be worth banging out a LGPL, glib-based prototype to do some initial tests? Along those lines, you mention a new C implementation you're working on. Is that something that you plan to fold back into the main libavro? Or will it be separate? The spec provides a good basis for defining how well different implementations interoperate, but so far it seems like everything has been folded into the single, Apache-sponsored project. Is there interest in having independent implementations? –doug
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
