spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com>
Subject Re: [GitHub] incubator-spark pull request: SPARK-1078: Replace lift-json with j...
Date Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:26:44 GMT
Sounds good, now that we are all clear on what we mean.  Didn't mean to be
a dick, just was a little confused on what you meant.


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwendell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Aaron just meant 1.0.0 by "the next minor release".
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Mark Hamstra <mark@clearstorydata.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The situation sounds fine for the next minor release...
> >
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean by this.  According to my current
> > understanding, the next release of Spark other than maintenance releases
> on
> > 0.9.x is intended to be a major release, 1.0.0, and there are no plans
> for
> > an intervening minor release, which would be 0.10.0.  Thus "the next
> minor
> > release" would be 1.1.0, and I fail to see why we would wait for that
> > instead of putting the dependency change (assuming that it is something
> > that we do, indeed, want) in 1.0.0.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM, aarondav <git@git.apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Github user aarondav commented on the pull request:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-spark/pull/582#issuecomment-34836430
> >>
> >>     Thanks for looking into it! The situation sounds fine for the next
> >> minor release, and I don't think this patch needs to be included in the
> >> next maintenance release anyway (following your very own [suggestion](
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spark-dev/201402.mbox/browser)
> >> on the dev list).
> >>
> >>     While this patch looks good to me, I am not sure I fully understand
> >> the need for it. I posted my question on the [dev list thread](
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spark-dev/201402.mbox/%3C945190638.685798.1391974088596.JavaMail.zimbra%40redhat.com%3E
> ).
> >> Besides the dependency change, you also mention performance
> improvements.
> >> [This benchmark](
> >> http://engineering.ooyala.com/blog/comparing-scala-json-libraries) does
> >> show Jackson outperforming lift on a particular workload, but do you
> have
> >> another source showing how the relative performance changes with input
> size?
> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message