crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From mkw...@gmail.com
Subject Re: HBase 1.0.0 Adoption
Date Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:32:47 GMT
No nothing egregious just was looking at the warnings and some of the javadoc for classes like
HTable mentioning it being part of the public API anymore.  So I was just going to take a
stab at cleaning up those warnings to avoid issues when we take the next version but wasn't
sure if there was a strategic reason to avoid that work. 



> On Jun 29, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 
> When I wrote it, I was mainly interested in the minimum amount of change
> that would get tests to pass, even if it led to deprecation warnings. Was
> there anything you noticed that was particularly egregious?
> 
> J
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Micah Whitacre <mkwhit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So I was poking around the HBase code and noticed the deprecation warnings
>> around using HTable vs Table as well as using strings for table names
>> instead of TableName.  With the CRUNCH-475, how much passivity or backwards
>> compatibility are we shooting for?  Support 0.98? Or fully expect HBase
>> 1.0.0 or higher?
>> 
>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-475
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Director of Data Science
> Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>

Mime
View raw message