Recently, Hyoungjun worked hbase storage, and he has refactored storage module to be more general. With this work, we can support more storage types. Especially, I believe that JDBC-based storages (i.e., RDBMS as a storage) would be helpful to complement Tajo's nature which does not support interactive insert/update storage. Also, Tajo makes good use of indexing feature of RDBMSs.
Best regards, Hyunsik On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently, Tajo is being incrementally disseminated in users. I have > heard many times the following requests: > > * thin JDBC driver > * Orc file support > * Kerberos > * ODBC > * Multi-tenancy in scheduler > > Probably, we should go the direction by considering the above features. > > Best regards, > Hyunsik > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Jihoon, >> >> 0.9.1 will be an incremental release which includes some bug fixes and >> new minor features. Most of your suggested issues look nice for 0.9.1. >> Additional issues which were already committed to master will be >> naturally included in 0.9.1. But, we need to check if TAJO-982 is >> reasonable. >> >> In my opinion, we can discuss the 0.9.1 soon. >> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Jihoon Son <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Hyunsik, >>> >>> More frequent release sounds great! >>> Here are the notable issues that are currently scheduled for 0.9.1. >>> >>> - TAJO-1095: implement JSON file scanner >>> - TAJO-1026: implement query history persistency manager >>> - TAJO-982: improve fetcher to get multiple shuffle outputs through a >>> request >>> - TAJO-269: change the de/serialization protocol of logical plan of >>> query unit attempt from Json to ProtocolBuffer >>> - TAJO-235, TAJO-233: support oracle and postgresql catalog store >>> >>> IMO, if we resolve the above issues, it would be sufficient for the next >>> release. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Jihoon >>> >>> >>> 2014-10-13 17:58 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> I'd like to discuss the next roadmap after 0.9.0 release. Currently, I >>>> already separated 0.9.0 branch from master branch. So, we can feel >>>> free to proceed our work in master branch. >>>> >>>> Because the current Tajo is very stable, it would be great if we >>>> release Tajo more frequently. It will gain more attention from this >>>> field. >>>> >>>> So, I propose that we release 0.9.1 after about one month. I'd like to >>>> hear you guys' opinions. >>>> >>>> Also, let's talk about the roadmap of 0.9.1. >>>> >>>> - Hyunsik >>>>
