accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] API release policy for 1.7/2.0
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:59:31 GMT
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > John Vines wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Keith Turner<keith@deenlo.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  John Vines wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  Though I feel the biggest reasoning is our switch to semantic
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> versioning. And from semver.org,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   >
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>   >
> > >>>>>>>>   >       1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible
API
> changes
> > >>>>>>>>   >
> > >>>>>>>>   >
> > >>>>>>>>   >
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   Right and dropping deprecated APIs is an incompatible
change.
> Do
> > >>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> think
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   the following two rules are reasonable?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>     * When API is deprecated, must offer replacement
if feasible.
> > >>>>>>>     * Can only drop deprecated method when MAJOR version
is
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> incremented
> > >>>
> > >>>> (there
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>    are other proposed constraints on dropping deprecated methods)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   If we follow the above, then we can not deprecate
current API
> > >>>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>   introducing new API (because the replacement would
not exist
> > >>>>>>>   concurrently).  Also we can not drop the current
API in 2.0.0
> if
> > >>>>>>> its
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>   deprecated.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It is totally a reasonable statement for after 2.0.0. But
for
> 2.0.0
> > I
> > >>>>> am
> > >>>>> not okay making this guarantee because I would rather sacrifice
> > >>>>> backward
> > >>>>> compatibility for an API that isn't plagued by shortcomings
of the
> > old
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> API
> > >>>
> > >>>> Again, this is the fear/concern of impacting the new API due to
> > >>>>
> > >>> supporting
> > >>>
> > >>>> of the old which *may or may not even happen*.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  Good point, we could adopt these rules now and never create a
new
> > >>> API.  I
> > >>> think we would be better off adopting this now regardless of wether
> not
> > >>> we
> > >>> introduce a new API in the future.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, if we do eventually create an API.  How is it user unfriendly
> to
> > >>> have
> > >>> the old API around in deprecated form?  The deprecation markings
> > clearly
> > >>> communicate that someone writing new code should not use the old API.
> > >>> However it still allows existing code that users invested time into
> > >>> writing
> > >>> to run w/o issue against 2.0.0.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I feel like I'm repeating myself. My concern is that the
> implementation
> > >> details of maintaining the 1.x API in deprecated form will have a
> > negative
> > >> impact on the 2.0 API due to implementation details.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sorry, Keith, you misinterpreted what I meant -- let me try to
> restate. I
> > > am assuming that a new API will happen.
> > >
> > > What is only a possibility is that the old API implementation would
> > > negatively affect the new API. John's concern is a hypothetical one
> that
> > > isn't based on any *actual* implementation details. He's assuming that
> we
> > > will hit some sort of roadblock which we would be unable to resolve in
> a
> > > desirable way (a way that would not negatively impact 2.0 API).
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is that we should address those issues if and when we
> get
> > > there. When we have context to a concrete problem, we can make a
> decision
> > > there about how to proceed. Meanwhile, we act under best-intentions to
> > keep
> > > the 1.0 APIs around.
> > >
> > > Do you get what I'm suggesting, John?
> > >
> > >
> > I'm totally okay with this. But that means no requirements about APIs
> from
> > 1.x to 2.0. I'd be comfortable with changing the verbiage to something
> that
> > lessens to encourage effort to support deprecated APIs so long as they
> > don't influence 2.0 APIs.
> >
>
> One thing to consider is that the proposal has language for making
> exceptions, a majority vote. What are your thoughts on that language?
>

That's great they're adjustable. I'm not going to agree to language now
that I currently disagree with, especially language that may be difficult
to be amended. Not everyone seems to have an understanding of my concerns
and the level of impact it has and that makes me question the ability to
get a vote through to retract that portion of the language should it arise.

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