accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] MiniAccumuloCluster goals and approach
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:17:44 GMT
I think this is better reserved for a version later than 1.6.0. It's an
11th hour change in addition to being a large overhaul of the interfaces to
support functionality we never intended for 1.6.0.


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Forgot to also add, that I would add the experimental annotation to
> alleviate confusion.
>
> The already mocked minimum set of methods on the interface which I posted
> to github Is a first pass. If we miss something that is in fact common, we
> can add it later, anything else is likely destined for the implementation.
>
> On Friday, March 28, 2014, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not even the addition of a new interface, Christopher? I'd very much
> like
> > > to have an interface that we can get in 1.6.0 at a minimum. I wouldn't
> > even
> > > push for any deprecation of what's currently in place.
> > >
> >
> > W/o deprecation it seems very confusing.   The intent is that users
> should
> > use the new one, but the old one is not deprecated.  If someone is
> > completely new to this, how will they know which option to use?
> >
> > Once you get down in the weeds of working on this, do you think you might
> > end wanting something very different?
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 28, 2014 10:02 AM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think any of this should be done for 1.6.0, but I like the
> > > > idea of creating a separate cluster interface for testing. I think it
> > > > should be integrated into the accumulo-maven-plugin, also. I think
> the
> > > > idea should be hammered out, and tested as a separate thing, to
> > > > experiment with the options, and provided as a complete feature for
> > > > the next major release. If it would change packaging dependencies, it
> > > > shouldn't even be done for 1.6.x bugfix releases.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Oh, I like that idea, Bill & Sean.
> > > > >
> > > > > Package: org.apache.accumulo.cluster
> > > > > Public API: org.apache.accumulo.cluster.AccumuloCluster
> > > > > MAC: org.apache.accumulo.cluster.mini.MiniAccumuloCluster
> (implements
> > > > > AccumuloCluster, allows for backwards compat)
> > > > > Yarn: org.apache.accumulo.cluster.yarn
> > > > > Docker: ...
> > > > > Mesos: ...
> > > > >
> > > > > etc etc etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > One question in my mind, do we keep the maven module
> > > > 'accumulo-minicluster'?
> > > > > I would imagine that if we struck the 'mini' portion from 1.6 that
> > > would
> > > > > create some confusion. Would it be worth the indirection to rename
> > > > > accumulo-minicluster to accumulo-cluster and then create a new
> > > > > accumulo-minicluster module that depends on accumulo-minicluster
> (but
> > > > > contains no code itself) to preserve the 1.4 and 1.5 poms to
> > generally
> > > > work
> > > > > with a version bump? I'm not sure if Maven would be happy with that
> > or
> > > do
> > > > > what I think it "should".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/28/14, 6:26 AM, Bill Havanki wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I've been watching the conversation on the side, but I wanted
to
> > > mention
> > > > >> that it seems the focus isn't so much on "mini" clusters anymore.
> > > You're
> > > > >> thinking of programmatic cluster management, whether one node
or
> > many.
> > > > The
> > > > >> idea of a basic cluster management interface, with MAC as an
> > > > >> implementation, is promising. A package name of just "cluster"
> could
> > > > work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carry on :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Bill H
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Sean Busbey
> > > > >> <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> If you decide to go the mapred/mapreduce way, you could go
with
> the
> > > > >>> package
> > > > >>> name "mini".
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> alternatively, we can do a multi-stage change out
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 1)  1.6.x:  introduce TestAccumuloCluster interface, @deprecate
> > > > >>> MiniAccumuloCluster class and make it implement
> TestAccumuloCluster
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2) 1.6 + major: change MiniAccumuloCluster to an interface
that
> > > extends
> > > > >>> TestAccumuloCluster, @deprecate TestAccumuloCluster
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 3) 1.6 + 2 major: remove TestAccumuloCluster
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Or just go with TestAccumuloCluster as the interface, have
> > > > >>> MiniAccumuloCluster as the local pseudo distributed
> implementation,
> > > and
> > > > >>> then call your new one something like YarnAccumuloCluster.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In that case we could use the deprecation cycle to move the
MAC
> > class
> > > > out
> > > > >>> of the public api.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Josh Elser <
>

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