Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40B1111BC0 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:29:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34365 invoked by uid 500); 23 Apr 2014 16:29:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 34314 invoked by uid 500); 23 Apr 2014 16:29:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 34306 invoked by uid 99); 23 Apr 2014 16:29:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:29:05 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [209.85.128.171] (HELO mail-ve0-f171.google.com) (209.85.128.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:29:01 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id jy13so1436648veb.16 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=p57ptYkWH5vCUX7v8V4n4fol/ZC7EUfR25+Wu+HNyCw=; b=FMgdjCJaml4GelrX7afbOnmMThHPvNwb1WvZAnjB3tCLY/xsAfuHqMeKS+t1FQCdpo Q/Yf6e48olZa8dPFuhMR2n833SNNHEEMSfz/Y+YzNS0kWnUlBFyY0Sw3VE3xZfU0LNjO INdIyzy8hVO0al0kb92tjddqmoqBfcOSEMYWilUnMGD1bb2zj7Ah2XWrs3rzqUExfnRe 7ebi1mmIGMsFRFth73UEgo+SQdu9TGdwQbci+MTmpIMBAEcu3T503Lf7Rpgkq0aYR+PZ bHzYP7XomHa2o0YGWo5MYWIFVSHY+udj1PHYFP9Vm2ReFBAaSl9ktWwY8U7feHscxp5f dqEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm0lyL0gLMgOeY8+lX6CyvYj1rrhYUshSQsMuFNtXVVbxXpb+oqYTKFUPgq2y28Oin8Ss5z MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.108.164 with SMTP id hl4mr12864998vdb.25.1398270520371; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.21.199 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:28:40 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: compatibility check between 1.5.x and 1.6.0? From: Keith Turner To: Accumulo Dev List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec547c9d5aac24704f7b83922 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec547c9d5aac24704f7b83922 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > The default japi configurations were set to ignore the mock package. > Oh, thats not good. I probably did that, but I do not remember why. > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Keith Turner wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > > > > > Okay, I think all of these incompatibilities are things that should not > > > have been in the public API in the first place. > > > > > > * client.admin.SecurityOperationsImpl > > > * client.admin.TableOperationsImpl > > > * client.admin.InstanceOparationsImpl > > > * client.mock.MockShell > > > * client.mock.MockTabletLocator > > > > > > These changes are due to refactorings outside of the public API leaking > > > into classes within the client that handle implementation. For these > > > things, I think we should fix them to not be in the public API and just > > > include an apology in the release notes. > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > I remember seeing the .*Impl classes and ignoring them because they were > > Impl, but I shouldn't have because they are not in an impl package. I > > don't remember seeing anything about mock, I must have glossed over that. > > > > > > > > > > Any objections before I make a ticket and put up a patch? Do we need a > > vote > > > about breaking the API, or is calling out that we're going to do that > in > > > the RC vote sufficient? > > > > > > (the other findings appear to be the japi compliance checker not > > > recognizing a method moving up a class hierarchy) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Sean Busbey > > wrote: > > > > > > > Here's the current reports, built with japi-compliance-checker 1.3.6 > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~busbey/compat_reports/accumulo/ > > > > > > > > executed with: > > > > > > > > for version in 1.5.0 1.5.1 1.5.2; do japi-compliance-checker > > > > -skip-deprecated -old japi-accumulo-${version}.xml -new > > > > japi-accumulo-1.6.xml -l accumulo; done > > > > > > > > with the config xmls like what's in the repo, but set to look in my > > maven > > > > repo and to not skip mock. > > > > > > > > I'll triage the 1.5.0 changes tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Eric Newton > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> I believe Keith did a mechanical/manual analysis and brought back a > > > couple > > > >> of methods/classes. > > > >> > > > >> -Eric > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Sean Busbey > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Has anyone done a compatibility check for the public API between > > 1.5.x > > > >> and > > > >> > 1.6.0? > > > >> > > > > >> > While looking into ACCUMULO-2722 I noticed some changes that might > > be > > > >> > problematic in client.mock and was wondering if anyone did a > larger > > > >> sweep > > > >> > already. > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Sean > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > > > > > -- > Sean > --bcaec547c9d5aac24704f7b83922--