Re: Contrib section (nee Re: A modest proposal for simplifying zookeeper :)

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

So far we've stayed with the process used by core as this minimizes the 
amount of work we need to do re process/build/release, etc... we just 
copy the process/build/release etc... used in core, we get all that for 
free. I'm hesitant to diverge as this will increase the amount of work 
we need to do. Core has moved to Ivy, we may move to that at some point, 
but currently we're focused on adding functionality, fixing bugs -- not 
changing build.

Patrick

Anthony Urso wrote:
> Speaking of the contrib section, what is the status of ZOOKEEPER-103?
> Is it ready to be reevaluated now that 3.0 is out?
> 
> Cheers,
> Anthony
> 
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>  It would be great to have such high level interfaces. It could be
>> something that you could contribute :) . We havent had the bandwidth to
>> provide such interfaces for zookeeper. It would be great to have all such
>> recipes as a part of contrib package of zookeeper.
>>
>> mahadev
>>
>> On 1/9/09 11:44 AM, "Kevin Burton" <bu...@spinn3r.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK.... so it sounds from the group that there are still reasons to provide
>>> rope in ZK to enable algorithms like leader election.
>>> Couldn't ZK ship higher level interfaces for leader election, mutexes,
>>> semapores, queues, barriers, etc instead of pushing this on developers?
>>>
>>> Then the remaining APIs, configuration, event notification, and discovery,
>>> can be used on a simpler, rope free API.
>>>
>>> The rope is what's killing me now :)
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>

Re: Contrib section (nee Re: A modest proposal for simplifying zookeeper :)

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

Hi Anthony. We have a contrib in the current release, it's under src. 
I'm not sure I understand, what is "contrib section" referring to? Or do 
you mean client recipe implementations? (like ZOOKEEPER-78, which is 
being worked on for 3.2)

Patrick

Anthony Urso wrote:
> So does this mean no contrib section?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> So far we've stayed with the process used by core as this minimizes the
>> amount of work we need to do re process/build/release, etc... we just copy
>> the process/build/release etc... used in core, we get all that for free. I'm
>> hesitant to diverge as this will increase the amount of work we need to do.
>> Core has moved to Ivy, we may move to that at some point, but currently
>> we're focused on adding functionality, fixing bugs -- not changing build.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Anthony Urso wrote:
>>> Speaking of the contrib section, what is the status of ZOOKEEPER-103?
>>> Is it ready to be reevaluated now that 3.0 is out?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@yahoo-inc.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>  It would be great to have such high level interfaces. It could be
>>>> something that you could contribute :) . We havent had the bandwidth to
>>>> provide such interfaces for zookeeper. It would be great to have all such
>>>> recipes as a part of contrib package of zookeeper.
>>>>
>>>> mahadev
>>>>
>>>> On 1/9/09 11:44 AM, "Kevin Burton" <bu...@spinn3r.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK.... so it sounds from the group that there are still reasons to
>>>>> provide
>>>>> rope in ZK to enable algorithms like leader election.
>>>>> Couldn't ZK ship higher level interfaces for leader election, mutexes,
>>>>> semapores, queues, barriers, etc instead of pushing this on developers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the remaining APIs, configuration, event notification, and
>>>>> discovery,
>>>>> can be used on a simpler, rope free API.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rope is what's killing me now :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin

Re: Contrib section (nee Re: A modest proposal for simplifying zookeeper :)

[Anthony Urso <an...@gmail.com>]

So does this mean no contrib section?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> So far we've stayed with the process used by core as this minimizes the
> amount of work we need to do re process/build/release, etc... we just copy
> the process/build/release etc... used in core, we get all that for free. I'm
> hesitant to diverge as this will increase the amount of work we need to do.
> Core has moved to Ivy, we may move to that at some point, but currently
> we're focused on adding functionality, fixing bugs -- not changing build.
>
> Patrick
>
> Anthony Urso wrote:
>>
>> Speaking of the contrib section, what is the status of ZOOKEEPER-103?
>> Is it ready to be reevaluated now that 3.0 is out?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Mahadev Konar <ma...@yahoo-inc.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>  It would be great to have such high level interfaces. It could be
>>> something that you could contribute :) . We havent had the bandwidth to
>>> provide such interfaces for zookeeper. It would be great to have all such
>>> recipes as a part of contrib package of zookeeper.
>>>
>>> mahadev
>>>
>>> On 1/9/09 11:44 AM, "Kevin Burton" <bu...@spinn3r.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK.... so it sounds from the group that there are still reasons to
>>>> provide
>>>> rope in ZK to enable algorithms like leader election.
>>>> Couldn't ZK ship higher level interfaces for leader election, mutexes,
>>>> semapores, queues, barriers, etc instead of pushing this on developers?
>>>>
>>>> Then the remaining APIs, configuration, event notification, and
>>>> discovery,
>>>> can be used on a simpler, rope free API.
>>>>
>>>> The rope is what's killing me now :)
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>
>