accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Planning for (eventual) removal of instance.dfs.{uri,dir}
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2014 02:13:59 GMT
My ACCUMULO-2589 branch in github (
https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/tree/ACCUMULO-2589) does have a commit
that drops a bunch of stuff (which may or may not be accepted as is for
2.0). The instance.dfs.{uri,dir} properties aren't so easy and require more
planning, because it's not just removing a property... it's also dealing
with updating internal data by making relative paths absolute.

For what it's worth, I'm also looking at what changes if we drop Hadoop 1
support.

As for the validation of config, I think we do a sanity check on startup
already, which we can always extend. Doesn't solve this issue, though.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM, dlmarion <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:

> We should schedule a bunch of deprecated things for removal in 2.0 to ease
> maintenance. Do we have a way to validate the site.xml and zookeeper
> settings before startup and fail with appropriate error message.
>
>
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christopher
<
> ctubbsii@apache.org> </div><div>Date:12/10/2014  8:44 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> </div><div>To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Planning for (eventual) removal
of
> instance.dfs.{uri,dir} </div><div>
> </div>So,
>
> instance.volumes replaces instance.dfs.uri and instance.dfs.dir in 1.6.
> But, what's our long-term plan for these? I ask, because we still have
> internal code that uses instance.dfs.uri to resolve relative paths.
>
> Should we force these to be re-written at some point (maybe on upgrade to
> 1.7)? Should we continue to support the deprecated properties indefinitely
> and continue the lazy re-write-on-compact? Do we transition by requiring
> instance.volumes to specify the volumes, and only use the old properties to
> resolve relative paths?
>
> My personal view is that we should provide an upgrade-prep/check tool prior
> to upgrade to 2.0, which checks and/or re-writes paths and verifies that
> instance.volumes is set.
>
> Does anybody have a different opinion on this?
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>

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