[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1986?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12551605
]
Tom White commented on HADOOP-1986:
-----------------------------------
> I think including at least one non-Writable serializer in the initial commit
> would be best, to
> demonstrate the generality of the abstraction. Probably JavaSerialization
> would be best, since it
> has no external dependencies.
I'll do this.
> Also, we don't need RecordSerialization do we, since records currently
> implement Writable?
Correct - I overlooked this.
> However many would prefer it if records didn't implement Writable. So a
> RecordSerialization
> that didn't rely on Writable but only on the Record base class would be great
> to have. Then we
> could deperecate the implementation of Writable by the record compiler, and
> make record io
> available as a separate, standalone jar, as some have requested.
Sounds good to me.
> Add support for a general serialization mechanism for Map Reduce
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-1986
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1986
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: mapred
> Reporter: Tom White
> Assignee: Tom White
> Fix For: 0.16.0
>
> Attachments: hadoop-serializer-v2.tar.gz, SerializableWritable.java,
> serializer-v1.patch, serializer-v2.patch
>
>
> Currently Map Reduce programs have to use WritableComparable-Writable
> key-value pairs. While it's possible to write Writable wrappers for other
> serialization frameworks (such as Thrift), this is not very convenient: it
> would be nicer to be able to use arbitrary types directly, without explicit
> wrapping and unwrapping.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
