Hello Micah, > Uwe, I'm not sure I understand what type of support/help you are thinking > of. Could you elaborate a little bit more before I reach out?
I would help them with the same build system improvement we have done in the recent time (and are currently) doing in Arrow for C++. Nothing I would explicitly advertise on their ML, only as a heads up if there are Avro people on the Arrow ML. I cannot give any commitments on this but this would be probably some high gain for not so much work if that is currently hindering releases or adoption. Uwe > > -Micah > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:53 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am OK with that, but if we find ourselves making compromises that > > affect performance or memory efficiency (where possibly invasive > > refactoring may be required) perhaps we should reconsider option #3. > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm leaning a bit towards 1) but I would love to get some input from the > > Avro community as 1) depends also on their side as we will submit some > > patches upstream that need to be reviewed and someday also released. > > > > > > Are AVRO committers subscribed here or should we reach out to them on > > their ML? Given that we are quite active in the C++ space currently, I feel > > that we can contribute quite some infrastructure in building and packaging > > that we do eitherway for Arrow. This might be quite helpful for a project. > > We have seen with Parquet where much of the development is just happening > > as it is part of Arrow. (Not suggesting to merge/fork the Avro codebase but > > just to apply some of the best practices we learned while building Arrow). > > > > > > Uwe > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, at 4:57 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > > > > I'd be +0.5 in favor of forking in this particular case. Since Avro is > > > > not vectorized (unlike Parquet and ORC) I suspect it may be more > > > > difficult to get the best performance using a general purpose API > > > > versus one that is more specialized to producing Arrow record batches. > > > > Given that has been relatively light C++ development activity in > > > > Apache Avro and no releases for 2 years it does give me pause. > > > > > > > > We might want to look at Impala's Avro scanner, they are doing some > > > > LLVM IR cross-compilation also (they're using the Avro C++ library > > > > though) > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/impala/blob/master/be/src/exec/hdfs-avro-scanner-ir.cc > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/impala/blob/master/be/src/exec/hdfs-avro-scanner.cc > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:01 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking at incorporating Avro in Arrow C++ [1]. It seems that > > the Avro > > > > > C++ library APIs have improved from the last release. However, it > > is not > > > > > clear when a new release will be available (I asked on the JIRA > > Item for > > > > > the next release [2] and received no response). > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering if there is a policy governing using other Apache > > projects > > > > > or how people felt about the following options: > > > > > 1. Depend on a specific git commit through the third-party library > > system. > > > > > 2. Copy the necessary source code temporarily to our project, and > > change > > > > > to using the next release when it is available. > > > > > 3. Fork the code we need (the main benefit I see here is being able > > to > > > > > refactor it to avoid having to deal with exceptions, easier > > integration > > > > > with our IO system and one less 3rd party dependency to deal with). > > > > > 4. Wait on the 1.9 release before proceeding. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Micah > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-1209 > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2250 > > > > > > >
