hadoop-hdfs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Colin P. McCabe" <cmcc...@apache.org>
Subject Re: hadoop-hdfs-client splitoff is going to break code
Date Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:01:59 GMT
Thanks for being proactive here, Steve.  I think this is a good example of
why this change should have been done in a branch rather than having been
done directly in trunk.


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Steve Loughran <stevel@hortonworks.com>

> just an FYI, the split off of hadoop hdfs into client and server is going
> to break things.
> I know that, as my code is broken; DFSConfigKeys off the path,
> HdfsConfiguration, the class I've been loading to force pickup of
> hdfs-site.xml -all missing.
> This is because hadoop-client  POM now depends on hadoop-hdfs-client, not
> hadoop-hdfs, so the things I'm referencing are gone. I'm particularly sad
> about DfsConfigKeys, as everybody uses it as the one hard-coded resource of
> HDFS constants, HDFS-6566 covering the issue of making this public,
> something that's been sitting around for a year.
> I'm fixing my build by explicitly adding a hadoop-hdfs dependency.
> Any application which used stuff which has now been declared server-side
> isn't going to compile any more, which does appear to break the
> compatibility guidelines we've adopted, specifically "The hadoop-client
> artifact (maven groupId:artifactId) stays compatible within a major release"
> http://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html#Build_artifacts
> We need to do one of
> 1. agree that this change, is considered acceptable according to policy,
> and mark it as incompatible in hdfs/CHANGES.TXT
> 2. Change the POMs to add both hdfs-client and -hdfs server in
> hadoop-client -with downstream users free to exclude the server code
> We unintentionally caused similar grief with the move of the s3n clients
> to hadoop-aws , HADOOP-11074 -something we should have picked up and -1'd.
> This time we know the problems going to arise, so lets explicitly make a
> decision this time, and share it with our users.
> -steve

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