accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.5.1-RC3
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:50:29 GMT
Ah, I missed the recursiveness of the o.a.a.c.c.

But, like I mentioned in the other message, I don't think binary compat 
was achieved, but the package name, constructors, and methods existing 
in 1.5.0 were maintained AFAIK. Are we asserting binary compat here as well?

I'm trying to understand if we actually didn't follow our own rules, or 
if the expectations of the community are exceeding the rules we have for 
ourselves. I think we're in the latter right now.

On 3/28/14, 9:41 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> According to the definition of the public API in version 1.5.0,
> RangeInputSplit is a part of the public API.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Devil's advocate: RangeInputSplit isn't part of the public API either, so
>> it comes with the same risks that TabletLocator would.
>>
>> It sounds more like the definition of "public api" should be expanded to
>> prevent this in future cases. I need to look at what exactly broke for Don.
>>
>>
>> On 3/28/14, 9:12 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>
>>> Don,
>>>
>>> If you can file a jira with some example code that covers what parts of
>>> the
>>> 1.5.0 API you hit, I can see if I can a patch to get you working.
>>>
>>> That would give you a patch you could apply on top of 1.5.1 now and when
>>> 1.5.2 comes out it would correctly support the API.
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Donald Miner <dminer@clearedgeit.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   I'm starting to dig around for a workaround and figured someone might be
>>>> able to help me right away.
>>>>
>>>> In digging deeper, we were using RangeInputSplit because it gave us the
>>>> splits AND the locations. We use the locations for some data locality
>>>> placing in our distributed application. listSplits only gives us splits.
>>>>
>>>> Is there an easy way to get both of these pieces of information together?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Ack, sorry about that, Don.
>>>>>
>>>>> We probably should have been more strict about that. It's tough to make
>>>>> a
>>>>> call about a public class that someone *might* be using.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/14, 12:26 PM, Donald Miner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Sorry to necro this thread, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had some user code referencing this code directly and our
>>>>>> application
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> longer works in 1.5.1. Just found out today when installing on 1.5.1.
>>>>>> In
>>>>>> retrospect, we should have been using .listSplits from TableOperatons,
>>>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>
>>>>> instead we were using the RangeInputSplit method to get the splits for
a
>>>>>> table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess since we probably shouldn't have been doing that, I don't
know
>>>>>>
>>>>> if
>>>>
>>>>> that's a case for this not being deleted without going to deprecated...
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> we did have a nasty surprise and a deprecation warning would have
been
>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -d
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I'll buy that the RangeInputSplit is probably not referenced directly
>>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> user code. In this case it's probably not a big enough change to delay
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>     On Feb 25, 2014 6:19 PM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I don't know that this inner class used for M/R should be
considered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public API... nor do I imagine it will cause compatibility
problems
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> users aren't referencing it in their code (which there's
no reason to
>>>>>>>> expect them to). I don't know if anybody is subclassing
>>>>>>>> RangeInputSplit, but I'd suspect that it's an acceptable
risk.
>>>>>>>> Re-adding an inner class that subclasses the now external
one may be
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> good workaround. I don't think this would require recompilation
for
>>>>>>>> runtime compatibility, but if it does, I think that's probably
>>>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>>>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I haven't checked what would happen. If you subclassed the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   RangeInputSplit,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   it's rather likely that you'd need a recompilation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/14, 5:59 PM, John Vines wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Will it? Clients don't interact with that code at
all directly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Adam Fuchs <afuchs@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Thanks for running that checker, Keith. Should we not
be worried
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   about
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> removal of InputFormatBase.RangeInputSplit? If I read
correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   will
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   break both binary (runtime) compatibility and code (compile-time)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> compatibility. Can somebody make an argument for
why this is not a
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>> in a minor release with no previous deprecation?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a quick way to fix this, like by subclassing
the
>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.accumulo.core.client.mapred.RangeInputSplit
in a
>>>>>>>>>>> o.a.a.c.c.mapred.InputFormatBase.RangeInputSplit
that we mark as
>>>>>>>>>>> deprecated?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Keith Turner
<keith@deenlo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     I ran a utility [1] to analyze API diffs [2] between
1.5.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5.1-RC3.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The configs I used are the two xml files
in the parent [3] of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the diff looks ok.  I used jars from
1.5.0 and 1.5.1-RC3
>>>>>>>>>>>> bin.tar.gz.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/Java_API_Compliance_
>>>>>>>>>>> Checker
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     [2] :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>    http://people.apache.org/~kturner/1.5.0_to_1.5.1-RC3/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> compat_report.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     [3] : http://people.apache.org/~kturner/1.5.0_to_1.5.1-RC3/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Josh Elser
<
>>>>>>>>>>>> josh.elser@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>    All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider the following candidate
as Apache Accumulo 1.5.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   now
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     with 100% more CHANGES changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Git artifacts: The staging repository
was built from the tag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   "1.5.1-rc3"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   (3478f71a).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maven Staging Repo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   orgapacheaccumulo-1002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source tarball:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>>>>
>>>>>   orgapacheaccumulo-1002/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-src.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Binary tarball:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>>>>
>>>>>   orgapacheaccumulo-1002/org/apache/accumulo/accumulo/1.5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/accumulo-1.5.1-bin.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changes since 1.5.1-RC2: ACCUMULO-2324,
ACCUMULO-2361,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ACCUMULO-2369,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     ACCUMULO-2378, ACCUMULO-2379, ACCUMULO-2380, ACCUMULO-2385,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2387,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACCUMULO-2390
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keys: http://www.apache.org/dist/accumulo/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Final CHANGES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;a=
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   blob_plain;f=CHANGES;hb=3478f71ae888f8d73aaa93837319a6
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dbb4ba0c8a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Testing: Unit test and auto-tests passed
successfully. Ran a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (~2hrs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CI on 6 node installation. Ran a brief
(~1hr) CI test on one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   with
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   the newly-released Hadoop-2.3.0. Built
from src tarball, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   verified
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     functionality with bin tarball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since there are very minor changes compared
to 1.5.1-RC2, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> vote
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   will
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   be open for the next 72 hours (2/28/2014
0100 UTC).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Upon successful completion of this vote,
a 1.5.1 gpg-signed Git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> tag
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   will
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   be created from 3478f71a and the above
staging repository will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> promoted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Donald Miner
>>>> Chief Technology Officer
>>>> ClearEdge IT Solutions, LLC
>>>> Cell: 443 799 7807
>>>> www.clearedgeit.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message