On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Billie J Rinaldi <billie.j.rina...@ugov.gov> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:34:20 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >> I agree w/ Doug that 'unlikely to' is not a correct characterization. > > Would the following alteration be more accurate? > "It may be possible to incorporate the desired features of Accumulo into > HBase. However, the amount of work required at the current time would slow > development of HBase and Accumulo considerably." >
>From my perspective, that is more the case though your second sentence above comes across as a setup for our not integrating. >> But rumor has it though that the differences while small looking when >> described in a short incubator proposal, in implementation, the code >> is very different making an integration project, unfortunately, a >> piece of work. > > Yes, the implementation is very different, and we had difficulty capturing > that in the proposal. > Understood. >> hbase TRUNK coprocessors seem to be a more generic Iterator facility > > Some types of functions (e.g. query-time aggregation) can be implemented in > both coprocessors and iterators, but coprocessors will not easily support the > entirety of iterator functionality. Nor is the reverse true. The two models > present different programming mechanisms for server-side processing. It > would be useful to have both in the same project. > I'll take your word for it not having seen the code. St.Ack --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
