Given how fast we are currently iterating on the API in Giraph, I think
agreeing on a common API across 3 projects is a bit premature at this stage,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Dan Brickley <dan...@danbri.org> wrote:
> On 13 September 2011 19:47, Avery Ching <ach...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Perhaps more practically, I wonder if it would be possible for someone
> > the Hama team to refactor our code a bit to support Hama-style BSP in
> > Giraph? Certainly would be a pretty cool project...
> Maybe this is crazy, but: I was wondering... Pregel's basic API
> approach is pretty straightforward, gloriously simple even. Could we
> have platform-neutral APIs that allowed portability of applications
> between Pregel-based platforms? At least for Java...
> Right now, those of us who are more 'application people' than platform
> developers, are left searching around on 'pregel opensource' and have
> to try to guess which of the various Pregel-eseque platforms is
> looking most healthy. For example, my summer vacation project was
> checking out GoldenOrbOS. Yet by the time I get back, the Mahout list
> was buzzing with discussion of Giraph, so I took a look at that (and
> was pleasantly suprised).
> There is clearly a lot of energy and creativity right now going into
> this kind of distributed graph processing platform. That suggests to
> me that *finalising* cross-platform APIs would be premature. But it is
> also a time when platforms have a certain amount of flexibility that
> they will loose as they get adopted and embedded within products and
> processes. Could a Pregel-like Java API be agreed between platforms
> (e.g. let's consider Giraph, Hama, GoldenOrbOS), so that those of us
> investigating applications could proceed with some hope of later
> portability. This might be cheaper than trying to persuade Giraph to
> rebuild on top of Hama, or suchlike. Anyone care to make a first pass
> at suggesting some common interfaces?
Dmitriy V Ryaboy