accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:51:06 GMT
Ok, a bridge version seems to be a general path forward. Generally this 
would be...

* 1.8 gets relevant commons-config classes/methods deprecated
* 1.9 is 1.8 with those deprecation points removed
* 1.9 has commons-config shaded (maybe?)

IMO, it's critical that we remove the commons-config stuff from our 
public API (shame this somehow was let in to begin).

I think shading our use of commons-config would be a good idea and 
lessen our ClientConfiguration scope to being able to read from a file. 
Trying to support the breadth of what commons-configuration can do will 
just get us into more trouble.

On 12/5/17 12:18 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
> If we are going to deprecate, then it would be nice to have a
> replacement.  One thing that has irked me about the current Accumulo
> entry point is that one can not specify everything needed to connect
> to in a single props file.  Specifically, credentials can not be
> specified.  It would be really nice to have a new entry point that
> allows this.
> We could release a 1.9 bridge version.  This version would be based on
> 1.8 and only include a new entry point. Base it on 1.8 in order to
> allow a low risk upgrade for anyone currently using 1.8.  Once people
> start using 1.9 they can have code that uses the old and new entry
> point running at the same time.  In 2.0 we can drop the problematic
> entry point.
> Below is a commit to 1.8 where I was experimenting with a new entry point.
> This new API would need review, its rough and there are some things I
> don't like about it.  Just sharing for discussion of general concept,
> not advocating for this specific API.
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Dave Marion <> wrote:
>> There is no reason that you can't mark the offending API methods as deprecated in
a 1.8.x release, then immediately branch off of that to create a 2.0 and remove the method.
Alternatively, we could decide to forego the semver rules for a specific release and make
sure to point it out in the release notes.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Josh Elser []
>> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 6:19 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?
>> Also, just to be clear for everyone else:
>> This means that we have *no roadmap* at all for Hadoop 3 support because Accumulo
2.0 is in a state of languish.
>> This is a severe enough problem to me that I would consider breaking API compatibility
and fixing the API leak in 1.7/1.8. I'm curious what people other than Christopher think (assuming
from his comments/JIRA work that he disagrees with me).
>> On 12/4/17 6:12 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>> Agreed.
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:01 PM Josh Elser <> wrote:
>>>> Ah, I'm seeing now -- didn't check my inbox appropriately.
>>>> I think the fact that code that we don't own has somehow been allowed
>>>> to be public API is the smell. That's something that needs to be
>>>> rectified sooner than later. By that measure, it can *only* land on
>>>> Accumulo 2.0 (which is going to be a major issue for the project).
>>>> On 12/4/17 5:58 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, I don't follow. Why do you think 4611/4753 is a show-stopper?
>>>>> Cuz, uh... I made it work already :)
>>>>> Thanks for the JIRA cleanup. Forgot about that one.
>>>>> On 12/4/17 5:55 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think we can support it with 1.8 or earlier, because of
>>>>>> some serious incompatibilities (namely, ACCUMULO-4611/4753) I think
>>>>>> people are still patching 1.7, so I don't think we've "officially"
>>>>>> EOL'd it.
>>>>>> I think 2.0 could require Hadoop 3, if Hadoop 3 is sufficiently stable.
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:14 PM Josh Elser <>
>>>>>>> What branch do we want to consider Hadoop3 support?
>>>>>>> There is a 3.0.0-beta1 release that's been out for a while, and
>>>>>>> Hadoop PMC has already done a 3.0.0 RC0. I think it's the right
>>>>>>> time to start considering this.
>>>>>>> In my poking so far, I've filed ACCUMULO-4753 which I'm working
>>>>>>> through now. This does raise the question: where do we want to
>>>>>>> we support Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated
>>>>>>> 1.7?)
>>>>>>> - Josh

View raw message