accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <md...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Resource leak warnings
Date Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:36:52 GMT
Keith,

I'm not sure I understand the alternative solution that you and Christopher
discussed. Can you explain it in a bit more detail, please? I have my own
interpretation of what I _think_ you were proposing, but I'd rather not
risk putting words in your mouth. Specifically, I'm interested in the
auto-cleanup aspect of things.

I do think that the numbered changes you propose are good ideas. I also
agree with Christopher that we need to seriously examine the API that we
have, because chaining methods four- or five-deep [e.g. new
Instance().getConnector().tableOperations().createTable()] to do something
is not a great user experience. Determining the scope of the changes is
another community conversation.

Mike


On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Although there was no intention of circumventing consensus, looking at
> > the
> > > email exchange, consensus was clearly not reached.
> >
> > It is my understanding that typically, in CtR, consensus is needed to
> > resolve issues after they are committed, where there is
> > conflict/objections. Perhaps it was my misunderstanding of the
> > responses, but it was my understanding that while there was no
> > consensus on the final solution, there was no objection that would
> > have prevented the interim action taken.
> >
> > > The short time span did
> > > not give others the chance to work on eliminating the warnings, as they
> > > offered, or to instead come around to just dropping Closeable.
> >
> > True... the timespan was short. My goal, as stated in the original
> > email, was to commit first (just like I might commit any improvement
> > to the current state of the code), and I intended the email to just be
> > an explanation of the reasoning, as it related to the prior commits,
> > and a prompt for discussion of further action. The fact that I
> > submitted the email chronologically first was a bit arbitrary. I
> > accept blame for the confusion of that, and any inciting wording the
> > email may have caused... I probably could have prepped things a bit
> > better... I have many personal "lessons learned" from this. :)
> >
> > > Personally,
> > > I am ambivalent about it. In any event, -1923 now exists to
> > comprehensively
> > > tackle the issue, and I eagerly welcome input and help on it.
> > >
> > > Removing Closeable did not undo all the work done, but it did undo some
> > of
> > > it. It's OK to call it that. Sometimes undoing is fine. That part of
> the
> > > commit for -2010 is a minimal change. We all agree Closeable should be
> > > there eventually, which is more important. We'll get it back.
> >
> > "undo" or "improve upon" is probably a semantic difference... but
> > yeah, my intent was to make it trivial to re-introduce if we decided
> > it was best to keep it.
> >
> > However, I'm not sure we all agree that Closeable should be there
> > eventually. I cannot speak for Keith Turner (hopefully, he'll chime in
> >
>
> Its not just Closeable, I am uncertain about adding a Instance.close() to
> the API.  Its a very broad change to solve a very specific problem, which
> is not a problem in itself.  My specific concern is that its a big change
> to the API w/o much vetting.  I think the following changes should be made
> before release.
>
>  1) Modify existing examples to use the new instance.close() call.
>  2) Modify existing test to use the new instance.close() call.
>  3) Address the warnings
>  4) Create test to verify the expected behavior of the new instance.close()
> call.  For example verify that Scanners, BatchScanner, tablet operations,
> etc all stop working when an instance is closed (if this is the intended
> behavior?).  Verify that closing one instance object does not impact other
> instance objects.
>
> The purpose of #1, #2, and #3 is to eat our own dog food.  Doing #1, #2,
> and #3 would determine what it will be like for users.  This change will
> impact all users, its not a dark corner of the API its at the front door.
>  If we release with Instance.close(), we will be stuck supporting it for
> years to come.  I think it would be good to try to understand the
> implications of that the best we can now.   #4 is needed to define the
> expected behavior of the new API and ensure its achievable.   Also, I
> opened a bug about the new method not achieving its original goal in the
> case of multiple threads.
>
> As Christopher said, we have discussed alternative means of solving the web
> container problem that are more targeted.  I would like prototype
> something, but I have not had time so far.   Don't let my airing of
> concerns give the impression that I do not want to see a solution offered
> to users.  If there is no alternative solution I have no desire to put up
> road blocks for the existing solution.   This is an annoying problem for
> which users have no workaround and I really want to give users a way to
> address it.
>
>
>
> > at some point), but he and I have discussed this a bit, and I get the
> > distinct impression that he thinks it should not be there.
> >
> > > I never saw any compiler warnings because I don't use Eclipse. I can
> > > appreciate wanting to kill annoying warnings, but it would have been
> > better
> > > to tell Eclipse to STFU about them, until we could come around to
> > resolving
> > > them. If and when we do introduce some pertinent bylaws, the
> > peculiarities
> > > of an IDE should not drive them. Tools are there to help us, not tell
> us
> > > what to do.
> >
> > It's my understanding that these aren't Eclipse warnings, these are
> > default JDK1.6 compiler warnings. I could be wrong here... they may
> > need "javac -Xlint:all", or some other flag, to show up. In any case,
> > whether it is Eclipse, or FindBugs, or some other tool reporting
> > potential problems, I'm not concerned about them for aesthetics... I'm
> > concerned because they hint at potential areas of improvements or
> > bugs, that we should inspect with due diligence, and when they become
> > numerous, it's hard to actually tell the difference between a non-bug
> > warning that we've ignored and an actual bug warning that we've not
> > examined yet.
> >
> > In any case, the point is moot here, because even if it didn't produce
> > a warning, the current implementation does not warrant giving
> > incorrect information to the API consumer that it can/should be
> > closed, in accordance with Closeable's semantics (as in the case of
> > the currently broken MapReduce configuration code... See comment on
> > ACCUMULO-1923, which affects our code, and any subclasses of the
> > Input/OutputFormat). I would even go so far as to say that this
> > warning actually reflects an API bug: Instance does not actually
> > conform to Closeable's semantics... because it doesn't free resources
> > held by Instance... it frees static resources held elsewhere, and that
> > becomes obvious when we actually try to close it in accordance with
> > the semantics of Closeable, so it shouldn't be marked as such (until
> > we write the code to make it conform to those semantics).
> >
> > > There should be no committer norm of unilaterality. (OK, for the most
> > > obviously trivial of changes, but that's it.) Never mind whether this
> > case
> > > was unilateral: we can agree that a unilateral action has the chance to
> > > make others feel less valued and frustrated … even if the action is a
> > > beneficial one! Bylaws are a great way to avoid this, by setting ground
> > > rules. They can strike a balance, because we also do not want to be
> > > paralyzed by excessive multilaterality.
> > >
> > > This is all part of the maturing of a software project. We need to
> focus
> > on
> > > it. A healthy community around Accumulo is necessary for it to succeed.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading!
> > > Bill
> > [snip]
> >
> > Granted, yes, absolutely, agreed, and so on :)
> > (to be clear, when I say "committer norms", I mean of the CtR type...
> > it's unilateral to a point, until an objection from review)
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>

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