falcon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ajay Yadav <ajayn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Namespace-ing properties and FALCON-1573
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:41:48 GMT
Here is some more context
FALCON-1573 is an extension of FALCON-1434. A JIRA for namespace was
created even before FALCON-1434 as FALCON-1308. FALCON-1434 didn't deal
with the issue of namespaces either and namespaces were never discussed(It
also doesn't follow the original suggestion
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1573?focusedCommentId=14991127&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14991127>
in
JIRA to have falcon.system.*  for system properties). The issue FALCON-1573
has been blocked for 11 days in the pretext that the namespace issue must
be addressed as part of the *same* *JIRA* and suggestion to tackle
namespaces holistically as part of a separate JIRA has to my surprise been
found unacceptable.

As for namespaces
1. Any old system properties can not be namespaced as it will cause
backward compatibility issues.
2. We have never discussed or agreed upon a convention for namespaces, so
there are not 2 types of properties but only one, without namespaces. If we
decide with a namespace of falcon.system.* for system properties then we
have to fix changes done in  FALCON-1434 as well.
3. I am still perplexed as why addressing this in another JIRA makes it a
problem. We can revisit it in a separate JIRA in few days after discussing
namespace issue holistically. This will not cause any issues at all,
including backward incompatibility.
4. I find the idea of namespacing user properties with falcon.user.* quite
intrusive and verbose. I prefer a shorter, without namespace version, only
for user properties as done in FALCON-1573. This will avoid conflicts as
the user properties are without namespace and system properties will be
with namespace. Apart from being concise this has an added benefit of being
backward compatible with older user properties as well.

However, I am not worried about the code changes as much as community
dynamics. Apache is not about code but about community and people. So the
bigger issue for me is not namespace or it's format but this bizarre stand
that all enhancements must be addressed in same JIRA. There are enough
precedents in the community to show that all contributors have at some
point created a JIRA to address some review comments and unblocked the
existing JIRA. This allows developers to get some or large part of
functionality checked in and focus only on smaller subset of enhancements.
Not to mention the psychological boost of a change being accepted for new
contributors. I am quite sad by this sudden shift and find it quite
detrimental for community.

I request the community to unblock FALCON-1573 and tackle namespace
holistically in a separate JIRA.

Thanks
Ajay Yadava








On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Pallavi Rao <pallavi.rao@inmobi.com>
wrote:

> Folks,
> With FALCON-1573, Daniel came up with a very good suggestion of allowing
> user-supplied properties at schedule time. He proposed 2 approaches
> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1573?focusedCommentId=14982386&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14982386
> >
> -
>
>    1. Allow user to specify free form name-value pairs. Since user-supplied
>    property names can clash with Falcon property names, give Falcon
> properties
>    (generated when the bundle is built) priority over user-supplied ones,
> in
>    case of clash.
>    2. Namespace user-supplied properties, so we can distinguish user and
>    system properties. This will allow user to supply properties without any
>    clash with system properties.
>
> Daniel has already uploaded patch for approach (1). Regarding this, wish to
> solicit your input on 2 questions:
>
>    1. Should we pursue approach (2) in FALCON-1573 itself or take it up
>    separately?
>    2. When we eventually namespace the properties, what should the
>    namespace format be?
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> Question (1) : I think we should pursue namespace approach in FALCON-1573
> itself. Two reasons for the same:
>
>    - When user supplies a name-value pair and we silently ignore (we only
>    log) it when it clashes with system property, it is not very intuitive
> to
>    the user.
>    - If we don't introduce it now, but, bring it in later, we'll have to
>    deal with 2 kinds of properties, one that is namespace-d and one that
> isn't.
>
> Question (2) : I suggest we use falcon.system.* (or just falcon.*) for
> system properties and falcon.user.* for user-supplied properties.
>
> Apologies for the tad lengthy mail. Request you all to provide your inputs.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Pallavi
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________
> The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others
> authorized to receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance
> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> us immediately by responding to this email and then delete it from your
> system. The firm is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission
> of the information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its
> receipt.
>

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