GitHub user Kryst4lDem0ni4s added a comment to the discussion: [Discussion] The selection of Agentic/Taskflow frame
> As I mentioned above, it is entirely feasible to mix the strengths of > multiple frameworks, but we are unlikely to directly introduce the entire > framework (such as `pip install xxx`). Instead, we should choose the source > code that can be extracted separately and integrate it directly into our tool > (of course, we need to follow ASF's reference specifications). If that > feature is bundled with multiple frameworks and difficult to separate > separately, we may need to evaluate its importance. > > We are likely to first introduce a relatively balanced framework and > integrate the good aspects of other designs for transformation. This is > currently my thought I see, so then I think it's feasible to side with CrewAI and build further with a manual implementation of the other libraries. I also think that once the features are fully implemented with crewAI, we can isolate some items for optimizing the performance using Agno's principles. CrewAI here, being the preference since it has far more to offer as compared to Agno and its primary strength being its efficiency. Especially since we have to handle L1-LN queries sooner or later, we'll iteratively improve it using the others (Agno, LlamaIndex, etc.) Any suggestions of where we can start with the implementation of the demo, because it would be best to test it out first before finalizing the idea? @imbajin GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph-ai/discussions/203#discussioncomment-12666620 ---- This is an automatically sent email for dev@hugegraph.apache.org. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: dev-unsubscr...@hugegraph.apache.org
