As Jonathan Gray said, it is not on our roadmap currently, so
we have not looked at ways to do it. However, JCC is Apache
2.0 license so it is a possible approach.

---
Jim Kellerman, Powerset (Live Search, Microsoft Corporation)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Chow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Thrift API vs Java API
>
>
> I stumbled on JCC, the Java->C++ (and Python) bridge that the PyLucene
> folk are using: http://svn.osafoundation.org/pylucene/trunk/jcc/jcc/README
>
> Any thoughts on perhaps using that for the Hadoop family of projects?
>
>
> Wes
>
>
> Jonathan Gray wrote:
> > I have not used the thrift interface, but know that many others are.  I
> > doubt that they are seeing an order of magnitude decrease in
> performance.
> > What have others seen with thrift?
> >
> > There are talks of a new client-side API.  To my knowledge no one is
> working
> > on this, so it is not currently scheduled for any upcoming release.
> There
> > are a number of people who would be interested in it, so please continue
> > discussion on the issue if you have an interest in it.
> >
> > Here is the open issue regarding this (Pure C/C++ client libraries):
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1015
> >
> > JG
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Slava Gorelik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 6:12 AM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Thrift API vs Java API
> >>
> >> Hi.Currently i'm trying to communicate with Hbase from .NET environment
> >> and
> >> the only option that i have is Thrift.
> >> I did small comparison (execution time) between Java and Thrift (adding
> >> 1000
> >> rows with 1k data) and Java is 3.4 ms (average) vs. Thrift that is 44
> >> ms
> >> average.
> >> It seems that Thrift option is not usable from performance aspect.
> >>
> >> Now he question : some one tried to implement Hbase client side in C++
> >> /
> >> .NET ?  Is it feasible ?
> >>
> >> Best Regards.
> >

Reply via email to