The reasoning that led to 'taste-webapp' is what leads to create an expanded 'mahout-integration'.
When I contributed my code, some folks asked, hmm, could we toss your EJB and web services integration, because it seems unfortunate to make the whole build depend on the EJB APIs and the Axis services. EJBs are defunct enough we just deleted that. Web services are not, but this integration was not put into core. It could have been, but it was better to farm it out. The only reason it was called 'taste-webapp', which I sense is striking people as some kind of issue, is because that was the only thing it happened to contain. But, we didn't put it in examples, whether by accident or design, and that sounds right to me. It's not just an example of how to use Mahout. It is something a user may use. Consider the Lucene integration points. These are actually in core (not examples as I thought). I don't believe that feels quite right in light of the above thinking, which sounds right to me. "Most" Mahout usage does not involve Lucene. Some does. Lucene isn't core to Mahout, so probably shouldn't be in core. Should it be in examples? because there is also some Lucene stuff there. Better place, but not quite. Isn't this somewhere "more core" than just examples of end user usage, but not core? And now we have MongoDB integration. Would we like to put it in core? No, I don't think so, per above. Is it just an example? Not really, though that's a better place. It feels again somewhere in between, in the same place that the web services integration fell. That's "taste-webapp" then, though of course the name would no longer be accurate. So just change the name. (Rather than make n new modules for each integration, right?) And then I propose moving things like Lucene touch points there, yes. Nothing more. This is not any attempt to abstract-ify anything further. Hadoop stuff remains in core since it's pretty core, for example. It's just rearranging modules in a way that, to me, seems both more logical and more consistent with past decisions. On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]>wrote: > > Right now, we have taste-web, and it pretty much just contains the things > necessary to build Taste as a web service. > > All of our models are currently in core. > > Are you proposing, then, to have an integration model and in it would be > all the models other than the abstract definitions? And then are you also > proposing to extend it to have other integration pieces? > > >
