accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2017 19:10:06 GMT


On 12/6/17 2:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:55 PM Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Josh Elser<elserj@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe a difference in interpretation:
>>>>>
>>>>> I was seeing 1a as being source-compatible still. My assumption was
>> that
>>>>> "Deprecate ClientConfiguration" meant that it would remain in the
>>>>> codebase
>>>>> -- "replace" as in "replace expected user invocation", not removal of
>> the
>>>>> old ClientConfiguration and addition of a new ClientConfig class.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, if we deprecate ClientConfiguration, leave it in 2.0, and drop the
>>>> extends from ClientConfiguration in 2.0.  Then I am not sure what the
>>>> benefit of introducing the new ClientConfig type is?
>>>
>>>
>>> I read this as leaving the extends in ClientConfiguration and dropping
>> that
>>> in the new ClientConfig. Agree, I wouldn't see the point in changing the
>>> parent class of ClientConfiguration (as that would break things).
>>
>>
>> I don't think we can leave ClientConfiguration as deprecated and
>> extending commons config in Accumulo 2.0.  This leaves commons config
>> 1 in the API.
>>
>> Personally I am not in favor of dropping ClientConfiguration in 2.0,
>> which is why I was in favor option b.
>>
> 
> In the absence of any further input from others, I'll follow along with
> whatever you and Josh can agree on. Although I lean towards option 1.a, I
> don't feel strongly about either option. We can also do a vote if neither
> of you is able (or willing) to convince the other of your preference.

I don't feel strongly enough either way to raise a stink. Color me 
surprised that Keith is the one to encourage quick removals from API :)

If he's OK with it, I'm fine with it. I was trying to err on the side of 
less breakage.

Mime
View raw message