hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject RE: dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:38:32 GMT
We have been working on this for a while. It represents a significant investment. I see no
reason why this work should be viewed as second class compared with some of the other work
that has already gone in for 0.90. The patches have been up on reviewboard for over two weeks
now, ample time for review. 

  - Andy

> From: Jonathan Gray <jgray@facebook.com>
> Subject: RE: dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>, "apurtell@apache.org" <apurtell@apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 7:30 PM
> Committing this stuff onto trunk the
> day before a feature freeze and as we move towards stability
> gives me a little bit of the fear.
> I completely understand that it's been worked on for quite
> some time and think this stuff is awesome.  But I still
> wish I had more time to give it further review and to
> actually take this stuff for a test spin.  Right now
> that's just not possible with all the work to be done
> stabilizing and testing trunk (and I think time is best
> spent right now stabilizing the master/rs versus new
> features).
> Personally, I have a bunch of fairly sweeping compaction,
> flush, and split changes that have been partially reviewed
> but I haven't had the time to push them over the finish
> line.  I hope to get them in immediately after an 0.90
> branch is cut and trunk becomes 0.92.  This should be
> rather soon.  I'd like to see 0.92 get released in
> short order after 0.90 as there are lots of changes that
> just have not made it into 0.90 yet.  So even if we
> waited to commit, we could work hard towards the next major
> release (I don't think there are any major rewrites
> planned)  :)
> With this kind of big change and addition of new APIs, my
> preference would be to have it committed early in a trunk
> cycle (versus immediately before a release is cut). 
> That way, we can play with it ourselves, see how it works,
> try out some of our own ideas for usage of CPs, etc... In
> doing that, I would expect there would be suggestions for
> changes in the API, additions to the API, naming changes to
> be more clear from a non-implementer POV, etc...
> By putting it in immediately before a release, the original
> API can't be broken, class names can't be changed, all would
> need to be deprecated, etc...
> The other issue I have with the current CP code that I have
> read is the number of new classes introduced into existing
> core packages (especially clent).  Looking at some of
> their names, they are generic sounding and it's not clear to
> me without digging in that they are part of
> coprocessors.  Is it possible to move CP stuff into
> client.cp packages and the like?  Or prefix with CoProc
> or some way to keep this stuff separated?
> I apologize for dropping this on you now and if no one else
> feels the same, I am not going to spoil the party.
> But is it critical that this gets into 0.90 and into a
> release now?  Could we wait for 0.92 and get this
> committed in a couple weeks and allowed to mature a bit on
> trunk before it's released?
> JG 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:apurtell@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:14 PM
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Subject: dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
> > 
> > We've been nursing dynamic RPC and coprocessor changes
> for a couple of
> > weeks now and don't see any failures beyond what are
> already on trunk
> > with them applied.
> > 
> > I was going to apply them tonight but will wait until
> tomorrow given
> > that trunk is already disrupted a little.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> >     - Andy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 


View raw message