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 19:06:48 GMT
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.

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