There are many other projects (eg: zookeeper) that have moved to a top level project over time. Lets revisit this in the future if it becomes a top level project and my guess is even the name PXF(pivotal extenstion framework) wouldn't be apt then. Will stick to org.apache.hawq.pxf until then.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Caleb Welton <[email protected]> wrote: > The main precedent that immediately came to my mind was HCatalog. HCatalog > used to be in the org.apache.hcatalog then migrated to > org.apache.hive.hcatalog when it became part of the hive project. > > On one hand I prefer org.apache.pxf because it allows for the potential to > be an independent project in the future, but given that there is no Apache > PXF project this doesn't yet seem appropriate. If we follow the precedent > set by hcatalog then org.apache.hawq.pxf would seem to be the best > reflection of the current state of the world. > > -Caleb > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Shivram Mani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We are in the process of changing the package namespace for PXF. It > > currently uses com.pivotal.hawq and we will be moving this to org.apache. > > After a brief chat with Roman, it seems more future proof if we use > > org.apache.pxf instead of org.apache.hawq.pxf. If PXF were to extended to > > work with any alternate sink (not necessarily HAWQ) org.apache.pxf would > be > > more relevant. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > -- > > shivram mani > > > -- shivram mani
