But this is really totally focussed on integration of taste, isn't it? What other integration is there?
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Just make it more general still to expand its purpose to something more > reasonable: mahout-integration. I think some stuff from examples can move > over there, those things which are really utilities for connecting to some > other system or project. It is something different from examples; it is > non-core code that some users will nevertheless want to use and depend on. > examples is something nobody should ever depend on, in theory. > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > +1 on something like "taste-integration" as a module instead of the > poorly > > named thing we have now. > > > > On May 18, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > > > > > There's no web app in here, it's just code that imports MongoDB > > > classes. Yes it can be made 'provider' scope; it still means a lesser > > > overhead of downloading the dependency. (kfs has been removed BTW.) I > > > think we have the answer of farming this out to an 'integration' > > > module that was have already under the wrong name. > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> I don't see a problem with an extra module if the webapp can somehow > > resolve > > >> the reference at run-time. > > >> > > >> And if the artifacts are in Maven, how bad is it to include them as > > >> dependencies? If these could be made optional dependencies with > > "provided" > > >> scope, then anybody who doesn't use them wouldn't notice the lack. > > Hadoop > > >> does this with kfs, for instance. Nobody uses kfs any more, but they > > could > > >> if they wanted and nobody else has to resolve the dependency. > > >> > > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Weird as it sounds, I think the best place is mahout-taste-webapp. > > >>> Once the module is renamed it'll make more sense. But if you make a > > >>> patch against that module with the right pom.xml changes it ought to > > >>> be 99.9% what is needed. > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Fernando Tapia Rico > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> yep, I completely understand your concerns. So...What should I do? > cos > > >>>> I guess that I need to know where to place this to open the JIRA > > >>>> ticket. I don't have any rush, I can wait until you guys decide what > > >>>> is the best option for this DataModel. > > >>> > > >> > > > > -------------------------- > > Grant Ingersoll > > Lucene Revolution -- Lucene and Solr User Conference > > May 25-26 in San Francisco > > www.lucenerevolution.org > > > > >
