Andrew Reynhout commented on ZOOKEEPER-661:


I agree on the collaboration recommendation.  I haven't had a chance to go 
through all of the changes in Eric's fork yet, so I'm not sure how the two 
attempts compare in terms of functional completeness.  I'll get in touch with 
Eric and Evan and see how they feel.

The primary difference in the two approaches is that we're using FFI and they 
are using a straight C extension.  FFI should make it simpler to keep up with 
any ZK API changes, and make the code more conveniently portable to JRuby and 
other platforms, but that might not be a big deal -- ZK is at 3.3, and the C 
API has been pretty stable.

Re: ASF vs github, I think it'd be great to have Ruby bindings in the official 
distribution, as soon as the bindings are worthy. Github and rubygems 
definitely make it easier to iterate on the bindings independently of the 
ZK/ASF release process, but theoretically at some point the bindings will catch 
up and ZK changes will drive the binding iterations.


> Add Ruby bindings
> -----------------
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-661
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-661
>             Project: Zookeeper
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: contrib-bindings
>         Environment: MRI Ruby 1.9
> JRuby 1.4
>            Reporter: Andrew Reynhout
>            Priority: Minor
> Add Ruby bindings to the ZooKeeper distribution.
> Ruby presents special threading difficulties for asynchronous ZK calls (aget, 
> watchers, etc).  It looks like the simplest workaround is to patch the ZK C 
> API.
> Proposed approach will be described in comment.
> Please use this ticket for discussion and suggestions.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to