And by "wow" I mean to say, "your input was awesome and generous," not "wow
that's a lot of work."
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 9:24 PM David Mollitor wrote:
> Wow. Thanks for that started point.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 8:48 PM Owen O'Malley
> wrote:
>
>> It would be a lot of work. Of course there i
Wow. Thanks for that started point.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 8:48 PM Owen O'Malley wrote:
> It would be a lot of work. Of course there is a lot of overlap, but they
> have different use cases, so there are significant differences. From the
> big data side, there are a lot of blockers.
>
>1. CVF
It would be a lot of work. Of course there is a lot of overlap, but they
have different use cases, so there are significant differences. From the
big data side, there are a lot of blockers.
1. CVFS does not have the concept of replication, so there is no way to
get or set a file's replicatio
I just see a lot of overlap and doubling of effort here. Would be nice if
we can all be working in tandem.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 6:36 PM Aaron Fabbri wrote:
> It is a good question. I'm not familiar with Apache commons VFS (which I
> assume you are talking about, versus the BSD/Unix VFS layer).
It is a good question. I'm not familiar with Apache commons VFS (which I
assume you are talking about, versus the BSD/Unix VFS layer). There no
doubt will be semantic differences between Hadoop FS interface and VFS. It
would be an interesting exercise to implement a connector that bridges the
gap,
