Thanks Tucu. I have decided that for now, we will keep libyarn separate of Yarn, but Apache licensed. So, that once protocols are deemed stable, and when there are more C-based frameworks on yarn, we can reconsider contributing to Yarn.
- milind --- Milind Bhandarkar Chief Scientist Pivotal +1-650-523-3858 (W) +1-408-666-8483 (C) On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Alejandro Abdelnur <[email protected]>wrote: > Milind, one thing to keep in mind, if I got previous discussions right, is > that the API stability in Hadoop 2 it does not include PB protocols yet but > client APIs. > > Cheers. > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Eli Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Milind Bhandarkar < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your input, Eli. > > > > > > Since you mention libhdfs, now that hdfs PB protocols have stabilized, > > for > > > quite some time, would folks think that a native C binding for hdfs > > belongs > > > outside of HDFS? I think libyarn decision should be based on similar > > > feeling too. > > > > > > > > It would be incompatible to remove it, and it's actively maintained > in-tree > > by the same people who work on hdfs so I don't see why we'd want to > remove > > it. Again, the decision should be made by the community of people > working > > on libhdfs. > > > > Ditto libyarn, if they want to contribute the code to Yarn why don't they > > do so? > > > > > > -- > Alejandro >
