For 1.0 - complete Owl?
http://wiki.apache.org/pig/Metadata
Russell Jurney
rjur...@cloudstenography.com
On Jun 23, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
I don't believe there's a solid list of want to haves for 1.0. The
big issue I see is that there are too many interfaces that are still
Integration with Owl is something we want for 1.0. I am hopeful that
by Pig's 1.0 Owl will have flown the coop and become either a
subproject or found a home in Hadoop's common, since it will hopefully
be used by multiple other subprojects.
Alan.
On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Russell
Alan, any thoughts on performance baselines and benchmarks?
I am a little surprised that you think SQL is a requirement for 1.0, since
it's essentially an overlay, not core functionality.
What about the storage layer rewrite (or is that what you referred to with
your first bullet-point)?
Also,
To be clear, going to 1.0 is not about having a certain set of
features. It is about stability and usability. When a project
declares itself 1.0 it is making some guarantees regarding the
stability of its interfaces (in Pig's case this is Pig Latin, UDFs,
and command line usage). It is
:40 PM
To: pig-dev@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: requirements for Pig 1.0?
I don't believe there's a solid list of want to haves for 1.0. The
big issue I see is that there are too many interfaces that are still
shifting, such as:
1) Data input/output formats. The way we do slicing
