accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop3 support target?
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2017 03:41:19 GMT
I'm not certain what I'm supposed to be in disagreement with. I think
you've presented a fair assessment of the situation, and I agree with the
severity of the issue.

My comments in JIRA about shading not working was simply an observation
that we also need to consider the API breakage, which the shading wouldn't
fix.

If we're resigned to do the API breakage in 1.8, we can make that the
"bridge" version (supporting both Hadoop 2 and 3) by shading. Or, we can
wait until 2.0 and shade there to make that the "bridge" version (perhaps
even locking in a release timeline for 2.0... which hasn't seemed urgent
until now). Either way, shading seems the only way forward in order to
resolve this particular dependency issue.

The only other path I can see would be to not have a "bridge" version at
all and instead require upgrading Accumulo simultaneously with Hadoop. I
kind of like that option, but I don't think it's realistic for our
audiences, as it doesn't allow them to manage their upgrade risks, so the
shaded "bridge" version seems like the better option.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

> 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 <elserj@apache.org> 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 <elserj@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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 say we support
> >>>>> Hadoop3? 1.8 or 2.0? (have we "officially" deprecated 1.7?)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4753
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>

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