+1 for wheels, they are the standard binary distribution format so it
makes sense. Also wheels support packaging python 2 and 3 on universal
packages so they are future proof.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote:
> +1, is it too late to try to release these as part of the 2.3 release
> (to get familiar with the process, no code changes should be needed)?
> The wheels are advantageous when running locally (e.g. during testing
> and development) where requiring containers will probably be overkill.
> This will become especially relevant with the switch to use the
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Lukasz Cwik <lc...@google.com> wrote:
>> If we want all our code related to pipeline execution to be in a container,
>> what value does building wheel distributions provide?
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Currently, Apache Beam distributes Python packages through pip and PyPI.
>>>> On PyPI, developers can release either source tarballs, and / or
>>>> "wheel" distributions for each platform, which would be used if available
>>>> for a particular platform. Currently, we only distribute the source
>>>> tarballs, so any user who installs Beam using "pip install apache_beam" has
>>>> to have a compiler and toolchain installed to take advantage of Cython
>>>> optimizations in Beam (which require compiled C code). If such a compiler
>>>> is not available, Beam is currently configured to install anyway, but will
>>>> use slower Python codepaths instead of the more optimized ones (for
>>>> for Coder encoding / decoding).
>>>> I would like to propose that we start distributing binary wheel
>>>> distributions for our releases, for common platforms like Windows / Mac /
>>>> Linux. We could potentially use a method similar to this one
>>>> (https://github.com/MacPython/cython-wheels) for building these wheel
>>>> distributions. Thoughts?