+1 for pure java default and making the native a drop in option. I would suggest looking into embedding the native bits into a JAR file. There are some tricks you can do to write the native bits out to disk from the JAR file to load them at runtime. This would make it easier for someone to deploy the speedup by just dropping in a single JAR into the class path.
-Jake On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:14 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai_boorlaga...@apache.org> wrote: > Geode currently bundles xerial/snappy > <https://github.com/xerial/snappy-java> as a default implementation. And > this is a "JNI wrapper" on google snappy <http://google.github.io/snappy/> > implementation. > > "xerial/snappy" jar bundles several pre-compiled static libraries to > support various OS (linux, windows, SunOS) and architectures (x86, Sparc > etc). The current dependency (1.1.1.6) does not support SunOS (Sparc), so > the plan is to upgrade to a more recent version. > > While upgrading to a more recent version, I found a pure java port > <https://github.com/dain/snappy> of original C++ implementation and wanted > to swap with use pure java implementation to avoid any platform specific > dependency on Geode. > > From the creator - "*the pure Java port is 20-30% faster for block > compress, 0-10% slower for block uncompress, and 0-5% slower for round-trip > block compression.*". > > Though native version is better on uncompress (more number of gets, puts > depending on use cases), I would still vote for distributing with a pure > java version as a "default" implementation as Geode already exposes an > interface to allow any one to provide any custom implementation. > > In case if there are any differences between these two implementations, > swapping with a pure java version should not impact any existing users, as > Geode does not save compressed data to disk or on to the wire. > > Let me know if any one has different thoughts? > > Sai >
