My first HBase project milestone reached: a new HBase-oriented Maven archetype infrastructure, authored by me, is now part of the core product

Image courtesy of NASA

My first adventure in contributing to the big-data-oriented open-source software world has reached its first major milestone: a new infrastructure for development and management of HBase-oriented Maven archetypes (authored by me) has now been pushed through to the main branch of the Apache HBase project (which is to say, it is now a formal part of HBase). While my offering is not yet publicly available (that still requires a backport to the next 1.x release of the product), it is formally "in the can", and I'm very pleased!

Maven archetypes, to me, represent some of the most useful tools in state-of-the-art Java development. Generically speaking, they are used to allow very quick and robust automatic generation of a complete development environment (in Maven project format) relating to a specific technology (e.g., Hadoop, MySQL, etc.), often including fully-functional example code, so that a developer can get right to work understanding and using the technology, while spending close to zero time in the often-frustrating task of getting a workspace within their IDE properly configured. All of that is automatically and instantaneously done for them by the archetype.

When I saw the request go out for development of HBase-oriented archetypes (as an entry in the HBase project's JIRA system), I claimed it almost immediately. The fact that it was posted by one of the most prominent members of the project's management committee suggested to me that it was no idle wish-list item, but a serious request for development. I knew absolutely nothing at that point about Maven archetypes, nor how to develop them; but neither, apparently, did anybody else among all current HBase contributors. It would be my chance to study up on a new-to-me technology and apply it in a completely new-to-the-world (but very-useful-to-the-world) way. In other words -- it was a chance to do yet again what I've successfully done so many times before in my software engineering career with other technologies, but this time in an open-source context!

Not long after beginning to acclimate myself to the Maven archetype world, I realized that if I simply created the archetypes being requested and "dropped them into" the HBase project, that in all future builds of HBase there would be no proper testing of significant components of the archetypes. Just as problematically, it would leave things difficult to manage in the future for those who would need to (1) maintain the existing archetypes and (2) create new archetypes for different purposes. The available tools for producing Maven archetypes did not seem to lend themselves to the full software development lifecycle, and they are not particularly well-documented in all necessary regards. So my additional goal became to provide a very simple and well-documented infrastructure for development, maintenance, and future additions to a collection of HBase-oriented Maven archetypes.

In the end, I have provided an infrastructure which (1) provides for ongoing testing of all components of each archetype as new HBase builds are done, (2) allows future HBase contributors to add new archetypes in a straightforward away, via brief documentation provided in the README.md text found in the hbase-archetypes subproject's root directory.

Now we proceed on with backporting HBase-oriented archetypes to an upcoming 1.x minor release (likely 1.3), and then deploying the archetypes to the Central Maven Repository, allowing for public access to them.

Besides this, I have a few other projects on my plate, all in the open-source realm, consisting of:

• a new Java-collection-oriented tool-set that I am currently finalizing, which I plan to ultimately offer up to the Apache Commons project, and
• another HBase-oriented tool-set (unrelated to archetypes) that I'll be publishing on my own and then offering up to the HBase project as a candidate for adoption into the main product.

Other than that, as Mr. Bennet said, I am quite at my leisure, and will entertain any serious proposals (or even idle-but-intriguing proposals) for future software engineering engagements. Please feel free to contact me at:

daniel [at] commonvox [dot] org

Thank you, Koch brothers (for keeping your dark-money mitts off of Einstein's relativity theories)!

Here's a nice video from the BBC of an interview with Stephen Hawking regarding the newest researching confirming the existence of gravitational waves: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-35551144/prof-stephen-hawking-celebrates-gravitational-wave-discovery

For an even better layman-oriented explanation of why gravitational waves matter, see this other BBC video.

I'm just thankful that the Koch brothers (or any other of our ruling oligarchs) don't seem to perceive any aspects of relativity theory to pose the slightest threat to their ability to keep pathologically hoovering up vast hoards of wealth; otherwise they would have seen a need to gin up some dark-money sponsored "research" to cast doubt on Einstein's theories and the many serious studies confirming them.

Dark Research: How big a threat is it?

"Solar eclipse 1999 4 NR" by I, Luc Viatour -www.Lucnix.be
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 

A little experiment of mine over on the National Review website*, debunking part of an article posted there, makes me ponder two questions (one small question and one much larger question):

(1) The little question: Just as there has been a massive campaign to sow seeds of doubt about the reality of climate change, is the meat industry now starting a corollary campaign to sow seeds of doubt about the role that "big meat" (and its attendant methane output) plays in global warming?

(2) The big question: Which is the bigger threat to democracy: (a) Citizens United, (b) NDAA (pick any recent year), or (c) the locking of almost all scientific studies behind paywalls so that most of us only have access to summaries of those studies (written by spin-doctors, many of whom are funded by the same dark-money "not-for-profit" foundations that fund and direct some of the original research)?

I don't know what to call this phenomenon of locking studies behind paywalls ("dark research"?). At any rate, looking at the intense backlash against Aaron Swartz (threatened with a 50 year jail term for violating the 'terms of use' of his JSTOR account!) suggests that some very powerful forces want to keep dark research -- dark.

* Here are the main entries from my thread in the Comments section of the National Review article referenced above. Note that Julie Kelly is one of the two authors of the article.