Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Apache River to the Attic

available there, and > folks are welcome to copy it under the license, move it to Github, or > otherwise seek to re-mold it into a collaborative project wherever is > most convenient for them. > > Cheers, > > Roy > > -- Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder B

Re: JEP 411 - end of Apache River?

The IOT space is huge. It would be great to be relevant to more of it. Bryan On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 19:44 Bryan Thompson wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 19:43 Jeremy R. Easton-Marks < > j.r.eastonma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure how much JEP 411

Re: JEP 411 - end of Apache River?

+1 On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 19:43 Jeremy R. Easton-Marks < j.r.eastonma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure how much JEP 411 will impact River. I agree with the overall > direction that it proposes in removing the security manager. However, I am > worried that removing security features is going

Re: River project reboot

Welcome and thanks! On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:14 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Hi all, > > The board decided to appoint me as a temporary chair for River > so that we can reboot the PMC and bring in some new contributors. > > The first thing I am doing is cleaning up the list moderation so that > I

Re: Serializing data in River

I agree that making River relevant to non java ecosystems would be a good idea. On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:11 Jeremy R. Easton-Marks < j.r.eastonma...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this would be an interesting path to explore. I like the idea of > being able to write in other languages. It could

Re: Time to retire from Apache

I personally would like to see a bit more evidence before I condemn the actions of the Apache board. Lacking any detailed knowledge, I feel it is premature for me to draw any specific conclusions. At this point I know precisely nothing other than the fact that they have decided that someone

Re: November Board Report [DRAFT]

+1 On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 18:48 Phillip Rhodes wrote: > +1 > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:22 PM Dan Rollo wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > > On Nov 7, 2020, at 10:54 PM, Peter Firmstone < > peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > > > > > > Hello River folk, > > > > > > Please review or make any

Re: [VOTE]: make trunk an unstable development branch.

+1. It sounds like this addresses concerns for moving to GitHub. Question: will this help people to find the right development environment or do we need to do something more to enable that? On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 15:10 Peter Firmstone wrote: > Some additional rationale: > > The original

Re: August Board Report [DRAFT]

+1 On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 05:01 wrote: > +1. Nicely done. > > Dan > > > On Aug 8, 2020, at 3:10 AM, Peter Firmstone > wrote: > > > > Hello River folk, > > > > Please review or make any suggestions you'd like to communicate to the > board. > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter. > > > > As per the

Re: Vote: Change from subversion to git

+1 On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 16:26 Dennis Reedy wrote: > Git provides greater flexibility for distributed development, feature > branches, pull requests, etc... this is a vote to move River from > subversion to git

Re: Board feedback - Request discuss attic for River

I think engagement requires a few things. +1 on the technical points that you have called out Peter. But we also need to engage developers beyond those who are traditional users of River/Jini to foster new development with River. Which can then lead to new development of River by a broader base

Re: Draft Report River - May 2020

+1 Doing well. Staying safe. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 00:31 Peter Firmstone wrote: > Hello River Folk, > > Please review the May report draft below. With work starting to slow > down, I should have some time to complete the modular build soon. > > How are you being impacted by Covid-19? > >

Re: February Board Report Draft

+1 On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:29 PM Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > +1 > > On 2/26/2020 10:26 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote: > > I didn't make the February deadline, so I'll post the report in time for > > March. > > > > +1 Peter. > > > > Please vote at your convenience. > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter. >

Re: November Board Report Draft

+1 On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 15:48 Peter Firmstone wrote: > Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the > draft board report for November below. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > ## Description: > - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery and lookup >

Re: August Board Report - Draft

+1 bryan On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 16:51 Peter Firmstone wrote: > Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the > draft board report for August below. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > ## Description: > - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery and lookup >

Re: River Board Report

+1 Bryan On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:04 PM Peter Firmstone wrote: > > Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the > draft board report for June below. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > ## Description: > - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery and lookup >

Re: River Board Report

+1 Bryan On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 17:10 Dan Rollo wrote: > > +1 > > Dan > > > From: Peter Firmstone peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au>> > Subject: River Board Report > Date: March 19, 2019 at 7:58:14 PM EDT > To: "mailto:dev@river.apache.org>>" < > dev@river.apache.org >

Re: November Board Report

Looks fine. +1 bryan On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM Peter Firmstone wrote: > > Hello River folk, please review / comment / suggest / changes for the > draft board report for November below. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > ## Description: > > - Apache River provides a platform for dynamic discovery

Re: ConstrainableLookupLocator identity

I've never used that aspect. Nothing to offer. B On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:57 AM Peter Firmstone wrote: > > LookupLocator's identity contract: > > /** > * Two locators are equal if they have the same host and > * port fields. The case of the host is > ignored. > * Alternative

Re: Thoughts, progress and plans.

Peter, That sounds like a quite a bit of interesting progress! Maybe we could brainstorm some examples of secure services on the list, implement some examples, and publish the services and their code? Bryan On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Peter wrote: > What I’ve been up

Re: Draft February Board report.

+1 Bryan On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Peter wrote: > Hi River folks, > > Draft board report for February, I'm running a little late, so this might > have to be postponed untill March. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > <===>

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

+1 Bryan On Dec 1, 2017 13:46, "Dan Rollo" wrote: > +1 > > -Dan > > > > > From: Peter > > Subject: [Report] Apache River - Draft > > Date: December 1, 2017 at 12:42:51 AM EST > > To: "" > > > > > > Hi River

Re: Change of Chair

+1 On Sep 20, 2017 1:20 PM, "Dawid Loubser" wrote: > Patricia, thank you for all that you have done. > And Peter, congratulations! River is in good hands with you at the helm. > > Dawid > > > On 20/09/2017 21:59, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > The board today unanimously

Re: Participation

Peter, Just reviewed the release. My apologies for taking so long to get this done. It's been a busy time. Thanks for all the effort to pull this together. Bryan On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Peter wrote: > Anyone have some cycles to participate in the release vetting

Re: River 3.0.1 Release candidate

+1 I have reviewed this release. Bryan On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Peter wrote: > Don't forget the release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate > are > available at: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/river/ > > When we have enough people to review we

Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.1

Peter, i have been on vacation but this seems like a shorter than normal revirw period. Was it just a week? Bryan On Jun 19, 2017 12:04 AM, "Peter" wrote: > The release failed to pass during the voting period. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > > On 11/06/2017 11:11 AM, Peter

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.1

Exciting! I will try and dig out a bit and download the candidate release. Bryan On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Peter wrote: > River 3.0.1 is the latest release of Apache River. > > The release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate are > available at: >

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

* Security fixes for SSL endpoints, updated to TLS v1.2 with removal > of support for insecure cyphers. > * Maven build to replace existing ant built that uses > classdepandjar, a bytecode dependency analysis build tool. > > ## PMC changes: > > - Currently 11 PMC membe

Re: [Report] Apache River - Draft

e significantly improving performance under some use cases. >>* Security fixes for SSL endpoints, updated to TLS v1.2 with removal >> of support for insecure cyphers. >>* Maven build to replace existing ant built that uses >> classdepandjar, a bytecode depende

Re: Roadmap proposal

Looks good to me. Bryan On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Peter Firmstone < peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > Proposed Release roadmap: > > River 3.0.1 - thread leak fix > River 3.1 - Modular build restructure (& binary release) > River 3.2 - Input validation 4 Serialization, delayed

Re: Draft of February 2017 report

visible. We did add one committer this >> quarter. >> >> ## PMC changes: >> >> - Currently 11 PMC members. >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >> - Last PMC addition was Bryan Thompson on Sun Aug 30 2015 >> >> ## Committ

Re: Summary of my external work

I do not have a huge problem with detached development. The work could always be brought into a branch for review and commentary. In general, I think the broader question is status quo vs active development. I think that there is some consensus around the need for river to evolve, especially in

Re: River revamp

ookup service and manages >>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>> lease. This utility can generate attributes (from >>>>>>>>>> Configuration) >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>

Re: River revamp

gt; Regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Peter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my Samsung device. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Include original message > >>>>>> Original mess

Re: Draft Board Report

e. > > ## PMC changes: > > - Currently 11 PMC members. > - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months > - Last PMC addition was Bryan Thompson on Sun Aug 30 2015 > - Two PMC members resigned (went emeritus) during the quarter, Simon > IJskes (2016-10-23), and T

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.0

Excellent. A great step. Bryan On Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Peter Firmstone wrote: > Results: > > 3 binding votes > 1 non binding > > None against. > > The artifacts have been published, we need to wait 24 hours before > announcing. > > Regards, > > Peter. > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.0

+1: I vote in favor of this release. (binding) Great job! Bryan On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Peter wrote: > River 3.0.0 is the latest release of Apache River. > > The release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate are > available at: >

Re: Fwd: [jira] [Updated] (INFRA-12432) Apache River migration from SVN to Git - Git commit access

I have become significantly pro-git over the last few years. I feel that it is much more nimble, and I think the goal here is to help make river more modular and gain the ability for an improved pace of development. Can you expand on your objection about scripts and complexity incurred? Bryan

Re: Exporters for other RPC frameworks

+1 I see exposing Jini / River more broadly as key. Bryan On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Peter wrote: > Thanks Dawid, talk about surpassing expectations. > > That's great news if you're able to donate your webservices works to > River, I agree, it will expose River to a

Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

On 05-07-16 14:51, Bryan Thompson wrote: > >> GitHub (at least) provides excellent tracking. It is a matter of how you >> define policy for PRs. We do not accept PRs unless the author is a >> contributor with appropriate CLAs for the project. So it works out very >>

Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

GitHub (at least) provides excellent tracking. It is a matter of how you define policy for PRs. We do not accept PRs unless the author is a contributor with appropriate CLAs for the project. So it works out very nicely for us. Every single commit and its authorship remains visible and that

Re: Attic? Was: Re: Lotj - languages other than java

I am just not that familiar with Apache policy. However, river is a real, functional, deployed in use platform. I certainly agree that there is deadlock at this point in terms of the people and process. However, I am not sure that an attic is the right place for a well grounded and fielded

Re: Draft report

rrying on >> as-is, making radical changes possibly in the direction of IoT, or going >> to the attic. We intend to complete at least one more release first. >> >> ## PMC changes: >> - Currently 13 PMC members. >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 month

Re: State of the project

There are several key reasons for moving to git, and a read-only repository would not support most of them: * Git makes it significantly easier to branch and merge when compared to SVN, CVS, etc. * Git pull requests encapsulate an opportunity for feedback on branches and easy diffs between

Re: Discuss River's future

I would like to see the 3.0 release go forward followed by something like 2. Breaking down the project into a more modular form and focusing on updated use cases, especially IoT. Bryan On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Peter wrote: > What do you want for River? > > 1. Care &

Re: [Vote] Release Apache River JTSK 3.0.0

+1 : I am in favor of this release. Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder Blazegraph e: br...@blazegraph.com w: http://blazegraph.com Blazegraph products help to solve the Graph Cache Thrash to achieve large scale processing for graph and predictive analytics. Blazegraph is the cre

Re: The future thing

. Can river (as a community) work on these things in parallel? New directions and a more nimble code base and process? Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder Blazegraph e: br...@blazegraph.com w: http://blazegraph.com Blazegraph products help to solve the Graph Cache Th

Re: svn commit: r1729654 - in /river/jtsk/trunk: LICENSE NOTICE build.xml

Binaries are useful. Publishing them to maven central is again useful. It definitely increases the uptake of a code base. Bryan On Friday, February 12, 2016, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > I suppose that one of the details of shipping binaries is that it creates > “users” rather than

Re: Reminder - [Vote] Release Apache River 2.2.3

+1: I vote in favor of this release. Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder Blazegraph 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@blazegraph.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> is our ultra high-performance grap

Re: Draft report

+1 Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> is our ultra high-performance graph database that supports both RDF/SPARQL and

Re: VOTE: Take Security seriously or my resignation.

Peter, I think that there might be a consensus for publishing 3.0 and then considering security patches against it. Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazeg

Re: Preparation for Release - one more volunteer needed

Peter, Brad (Cc) is working to put the River 3 candidate release into CI for our platform. This will allow us to test it in the highly available replication cluster mode of the database. Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro

Re: Preparation for Release - one more volunteer needed

Can someone point me to the specific version that we should test? Is this just trunk? Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazegraph™ &

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

; replacement. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > Sent from my Samsung device. > Include original message > Original message > From: Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com> > Sent: 02/12/2015 09:46:13 am > To: <dev@river.apache.org> <dev@river.apache.

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

Great! Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> is our ultra high-performance graph database that supports both

Re: Trunk merge and thread pools

Peter, It might be worth taking this observation about the thread pool behavior to the java concurrency list. See what feedback you get. I would certainly be interested in what people there have to say about this. Bryan ​

Re: [Discuss] Drop support for Activation?

Sounds just like the overhead of object relational mappers. Fine for one object. Death if you are trying to chase object graphs On Nov 13, 2015 3:11 PM, "Greg Trasuk" <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Bryan Thompson <br...@

Re: MarshalledObject, -Djava.rmi.server.useCodebaseOnly=false, stubs, Phoenix, Activation, RMIClassLoaderSPI

Peter, I assume that you want to set -Djava.rmi.server.useCodebaseOnly=true to close a security hole, correct? Thanks, Bryan On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Peter wrote: > During my investigation into security, I realised wanted to set >

Re: Release 3.0 merge into trunk

SVN gets really messy for this sort of thing. We wound not bringing a project with a large delta back to the trunk because of these issues and just did releases from branches after that. What kind of support does Apache offer for switching to git? That might be easier. Thanks, Bryan On Mon,

Re: Release 3.0 merge into trunk

+1 on moving to git. +1 on doing this before a 3.0 release if we want to maintain history from the trunk. Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.co

Re: Take out examples from River 3.0?

+1 on removing the old examples. Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> i

Re: java.io.EOFException in Jini Client: server is fine

messages by deciding when it wants the data. - You can use one network for the lighter messages that coordinate activity and another network for the bandwidth intensive data transfers. - You can avoid Java serialization for heavy if you have simple objects such as arrays. Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief

Re: tree-based / log(p) communication cost algorithms for River?

wrote: > Why doesn’t java spaces let you submit requests and have them worked on > and results returned without assigning any particular node any specific > responsibility? > > Gregg > > > On Aug 1, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com > <java

Re: java.io.EOFException in Jini Client: server is fine

Those are tiny heaps for large objects. Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

into component builds). Thanks, Bryan On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > On 10/09/2015 11:48 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: > >> I am happy to take on the documentation change. My preference would be >> for >> a FAQ. >> >> But I am

Re: Compatibility

, are there good reasons why River 2.x will not be able to talk to River 3.x? If so, can we capture them here and then summarize them in release notes? Is there a specific location in which the release notes are being developed (SVN file, wiki page, etc.)? Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist

Release 3.0 - is JIRA being used to plan releases?

Hello, I am trying to understand how the work remaining for releases is being organized, specifically for the 3.0 release. I've looked through JIRA [1] and it does not appear to be very active. It would be nice to have a clear view of what needs to happen to get to a 3.0 release, whether in

Re: Release 3.0 - is JIRA being used to plan releases?

So the release is currently blocked on the custard-apple dependency? @peter If so, could we please get this committed into org.apache.river.concurrent? - Deal with custard-apple dependency (either put it into River or publish to Maven Central) Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

e visibility guarantee here provided by an interface providing notice of attributeSet changes? Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

es to the api documentation, as per >> your suggestion? >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter. >> >> On 10/09/2015 6:56 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: >> >>> So can we capture this information about snapshots in the service >>> interface >>

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

ntation?) and adding a package.html or wiki page that discusses the contract for Entry and Entry[] and captures the outputs of this discussion. And then point people to that contract. I would personally opt for the latter. Maybe as part of a FAQ dealing (in this case) with River and concurrency. Than

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

ervices and provide them. >> >> As for problems with the standards, I'd suggest the proxy trust model is >> overly complex, I'd like to revise it. >> >> Otherwise there is a lot to like and a lot of well thought out designs, >> but there are some parts tha

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

they can update their own reference to a new Entry > object. > > Other classes with public fields: > > ServiceItem > ServiceMatches > ServiceTemplate > > These may be candiates for encapsulation or final fields. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > On 8/09/20

Re: Don't let Jini Standards become an impediment to development

to understand exactly which artifacts to deploy when there are jini and river flavors, or even multiple river flavors? I would rather develop a means to support that evolution that works. I am all in favor of the security and concurrency improvements. Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist

Re: Release 3.0

+1 on a short path to a 3.0 release. Everything else can go into a backlog for 3.1+. Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://m

Re: Release 3.0

structure refactor would probably be another major release (4.0). It will change the way people consume the code. But it can happen as soon as the project has been modularized. (I am going through this modular project pain right now in blazegraph.) Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist

Re: Release 3.0

to git for river (after a release). Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> i

Re: River Musings

the files in SVN? Thanks, Bryan On Monday, August 31, 2015, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > On 8/31/2015 4:07 PM, Bryan Thompson wrote: > ... > >> Apologies if I am behind the curve here. It would probably be easier for >> me to understand if the package nam

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

to org.apache.river.concurrent. Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/&

Re: River Musings

committed as code (rather than a source jar). Any other necessary steps leading up to a release? Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.co

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

/repos/asf/river/jtsk/skunk/qa-refactor-namespace/trunk/src/org/apache/river/ Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegr

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

need to be running? Thanks, Bryan [1] https://river.apache.org/ci.html Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegr

Re: River Musings

While I do think that the org.apache.river.(impl|api) distinction is more clear, different projects have different styles in this regard and I think it is Ok to respect the existing patterns. My sense is that river 3.0 is not introducing a large set of new public implementation objects and that

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

-code.html Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com> http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> is our ultra high-performanc

Re: River Musings

r" <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > On 30/08/2015 9:50 PM, Bryan Thompson wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> I like the solution. I have two questions. One related to the radmap. The >> other related to river and IoT. >> >> First, this a 3.1 release road

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

Fine by me. I am pretty sure Peter already indicated approval for this. I was just offering to help remove a potential blocker for the release. +1 for publishing apple custard as a river artifact. Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

Peter, would you be open to having someone else publish the artifact to maven? We are pretty deep in the process of publishing out a variety of maven artifacts. Brad (cc) might be amenable to doing this to help remove possible blockers from a 3.0 river release. Just fyi, we are in US eastern

Re: IPv6 Multicast Address Registration completed

Excellent. Bryan On Aug 30, 2015 6:31 AM, Peter Firmstone peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au wrote: Our existing IPv4 Multicast Addresses: 224.0.1.84 jini-announcement 224.0.1.85 jini-request Our newly assigned IPv6 multicast addresses: Dear Peter, IANA has listed you as the point of contact

Re: River Musings

Peter, I like the solution. I have two questions. One related to the radmap. The other related to river and IoT. First, this a 3.1 release road map issue? It would be nice to be able to move to a 3.0 now and have a development road map for 3.1. Second, there are a lot of devices and protocols

Re: Questions about the Reference Collection dependencies. Was: Re: Release 3.0

will provide a lot of step-by-step guidance. On 8/8/2015 7:21 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: Not really I am afraid. I am quite heavily committed on several projects right now. I have done applications development with river, but I am not familiar with the historical river project structure

Re: Release 3.0

/2015 8:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: Peter? Anyone? I have time, but not the knowledge. I would be willing to be release manager provided at least one person who knows how it is done will provide a lot of step-by-step guidance. On 8/8/2015 7:21 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: Not really I am

Re: [VOTE] August board report

+1 (not a PMC member). Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com http://bigdata.com http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ http://www.blazegraph.com/ is our ultra high-performance graph

Re: [Vote] Release Apache River Examples 1.0

://repository.apache.org/service/local/repositories/orgapacheriver-1001/content/org/apache/river/examples/river-examples/1.0/river-examples-1.0-source-release.zip The vote will remain open for at least 72 hours, 2000 UTC Aug 10, 2015 (1600 EDT Monday) Cheers, Greg Trasuk -- Bryan

Re: Release 3.0

in an Apache project release. I am just not a good candidate for this. Thanks, Bryan On Saturday, August 8, 2015, Patricia Shanahan p...@acm.org wrote: Bryan, Are you able and willing to act as release manager for 3.0? On 8/6/2015 11:56 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: Just release to encourage

Re: Draft report

Maybe it would be good to say a few words about the release goals for 3.0? I.e., 3.0 provides a deep refactoring that address performance, concurrency and scaling issues. Significant progress has been made towards the 3.0 release target. X new tests have been developed for this release. The

Re: Draft report

release blocker it getting more people to test in more environments. Perhaps we should put out an appeal on u...@river.apache.org? On 8/6/2015 9:33 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: Maybe it would be good to say a few words about the release goals for 3.0? I.e., 3.0 provides a deep refactoring

Re: Release 3.0

. On 8/6/2015 9:55 AM, Bryan Thompson wrote: Or just release it. If problems emerge, people can report them and they can get fixed. There is a known reliable release now. Let the community vote by migrating their code. Bryan On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Patricia Shanahan p...@acm.org

Re: Draft report

Greg, It looks good. +1 on releasing this. One comment might be to point people looking at the Java implementation classes to the md files that provide the guided tutorial. I started in the code and only later found the site/ section. Thanks, Bryan On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Greg Trasuk

tree-based / log(p) communication cost algorithms for River?

Hello, I am wondering if anyone has looked into creating tree based algorithms for multi-cast of RMI messages for river. Assuming a local cluster, such patterns generally have log(p) cost for a cluster with p nodes. For the curious, this is how many MPI messages are communicated under the hood.

Re: Draft board report

or river is not succeeding, but succeeding in a new community. Thanks, Bryan Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.bigdata.com http://mapgraph.io Blazegraph™ is our ultra high-performance

  1   2   >