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 Wed, 06 Dec 2017 18:50:17 GMT
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).
>

The intention of 1.a was definitely to leave in the ClientConfiguration
(deprecated) as-is until it is dropped entirely in 2.0. So, there'd be full
source and binary compatibility while it exists, but it would go through a
deprecation cycle and be dropped in 2.0, so users would have to switch to
the replacement ClientConfig before 2.0.

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