apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chandni Singh <chan...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: Enable semantic versioning only for specific operators in Malhar
Date Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:16:03 GMT
We need to identify the operators and components that are stable if we want
to go with semver check of only Stable classes.
I can create an initial list.

Thanks,
Chandni

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Isha Arkatkar <isha@datatorrent.com> wrote:

> Yep,  That's what I am doing now :)
>
> Thanks,
> Isha
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Chandni Singh <chandni@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Isha,
> >
> > I think for now you can configure the japicmp plugin to exclude the
> package
> > as follows in the pom.xml.
> >
> > <excludes>
> >
> > <exclude>com.datatorrent.lib.parser.*</exclude>
> >
> > </excludes>
> >
> > This is an example where we can benefit from inclusion approach with
> > japicmp 0.7 version.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chandni
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Isha Arkatkar <isha@datatorrent.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > > When 0.7 version of japicmp is available, we can add exclusions for
> > > @Evolving or inclusions for @Stable, whichever way is finalized.
> > >
> > > But before that should we add package exclusions individually if all
> the
> > > operators inside the package are marked Evolving?
> > > I wanted to make changes to some of the parser operators in Malhar. But
> > > changing those breaks sem version check.
> > >
> > > Please suggest.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isha
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Tushar Gosavi <
> tushar@datatorrent.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > > The new operators added will most likely to undergo change frequently
> > > until
> > > > they become stable.
> > > >
> > > > - Tushar.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Siyuan Hua <siyuan@datatorrent.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> > > yogidevendra@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not against the Idea of using @Stable instead of marking
> every
> > > new
> > > > > > @Evolving. I agree that, it would convenient to have @Stable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just raised the point which needs further discussion, so that
we
> > get
> > > > > > suggestions from the mentors and community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~ Yogi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 14 December 2015 at 11:23, Chandni Singh <
> > chandni@datatorrent.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we define some criteria for deciding when to consider
> > operator
> > > as
> > > > > > > @Stable?
> > > > > > > Yes, we should follow Hadoop's example and formalize some
> > criteria.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [It would be difficult for an open source project to track
> which
> > > user
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > using which operators. So, above strategy may not work.
]
> > > > > > > Hadoop is an open source project which actually created
these
> > > > > annotations
> > > > > > > and it's widely used. I think any new development takes
time to
> > > > become
> > > > > > > stable.
> > > > > > > If the operators are NOT marked as @Stable, users will
know
> that
> > > when
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > upgrade backward compatibility may be broken.
> > > > > > > I think it has the same affect of marking every new
> > operator/class
> > > as
> > > > > > > @Evolving. The benefit of checking semantic versioning
of
> > "Stable"
> > > > > > > operators is that they are currently fewer in number and
IMO
> easy
> > > to
> > > > > > manage
> > > > > > > and new development will be implicitly "Evolving".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chandni
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Yogi Devendra <
> > > > > yogidevendra@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When to mark certain operator as @Stable is not clearly
> > defined.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we define some criteria for deciding when to consider
> > > operator
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > @Stable?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example one criteria could be, if operator is
running for
> > >1
> > > > year
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > production environment for some user. Can we come
with some
> > > > strategy
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > [It would be difficult for an open source project
to track
> > which
> > > > user
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > using which operators. So, above strategy may not
work. ]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~ Yogi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 14 December 2015 at 05:42, Timothy Farkas <
> > > tim@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2015 4:08 PM, "Chandni Singh" <
> > > > chandni@datatorrent.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In Malhar there are  relatively smaller
number of
> > operators
> > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > our demo applications, customer applications,
POCs etc
> that
> > > are
> > > > > > > mature.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The library is cluttered with operators
especially in
> > > lib/util,
> > > > > > > > lib/algo,
> > > > > > > > > > lib/math packages which can be cleaned up
by either
> > removing
> > > > them
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > improving them but that breaks semantic
versioning.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When we add new operators/utilities it takes
certain time
> > for
> > > > > them
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > mature. Japicmp doesn't help because it
doesn't honor
> > > @Evolving
> > > > > > > > @Unstable
> > > > > > > > > > annotations for now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wanted to propose that we add an annotation,
let's say,
> > > > re-use
> > > > > > > > hadoop's
> > > > > > > > > > @Stable and mark the operators which are
stable with it
> and
> > > > > perform
> > > > > > > > > semver
> > > > > > > > > > check on just these operators.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The 0.7.0 version of japi cmp has the support
for
> > inclusions
> > > > (as
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > exclusions) based on annotations.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is the info:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/siom79/japicmp/issues/88
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The reason I am inclined to the inclusion
approach is
> that
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > relatively smaller number of operators which
IMO are
> > stable.
> > > A
> > > > > lot
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > aren't.
> > > > > > > > > > So instead of going and marking so many
as Evolving, we
> > will
> > > > mark
> > > > > > > > > > relatively few of them as stable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also new development can be facilitated
by this. We
> > wouldn't
> > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > @Evolving to everything which is new. Instead
we will
> mark
> > it
> > > > > > @Stable
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > it is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Chandni
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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