hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:24:12 GMT
IMO ideal would be to somehow duplicate the codepaths - is it
completely impossible to do so? Or could we hack in a flag like
hbase.connpool.by.identity=true -- default to the broken way, and let
users switch to the "new" codepath by toggling the boolean?

Sorry I don't have enough context on the patch to know if the above is
crazy-talk.

-Todd

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:
>> If anyone running 0.90 relies on the current behavior to
>> enforce separate connections (for whatever reason), using separate
>> Configuration instances, this would break that behavior and appear as a
>> regression right?
>
> Does anyone do this? We could query user@ before considering commit.
>
>> I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in
>> trying it.
>
> Another option to consider is putting it into a branch that Ted could maintain, if he's
agreeable to that and someone is going to -1 putting this into 0.90.
>
>    - Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
>>
>> Changing the connection identity behavior in the middle of a release series
>> seems like a bad idea.
>>
>> The 0.20 releases did connection identity based on Configuration contents,
>> 0.90 changed this to Configuration instance identity, then 0.90.5 would be
>> going back to contents again (acknowledged with a smarter subset and guards
>> against changes)?  If anyone running 0.90 relies on the current behavior to
>> enforce separate connections (for whatever reason), using separate
>> Configuration instances, this would break that behavior and appear as a
>> regression right?
>>
>> Changing these underlying assumptions in a minor release doesn't seem
>> right.  I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in
>> trying it.  But I'd need some convincing that the current 0.90 behavior is
>> completely broken rather than sub-optimal to agree to include it.
>>
>> --gh
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  One reason for my endorsement is that it would take 0.92 quite some time to
>>>  reach the level of stability of 0.90.4
>>>  I really think HBASE-3777 would benefit HBase users a lot, and reducing
>>>  potential future inquiry about connection-related issues.
>>>
>>>  Of course, backporting increases the amount of work for validation of
>>>  0.90.5
>>>  But I think it is worth it.
>>>
>>>  My two cents.
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
>>>  >wrote:
>>>
>>>  > I'm -0 at the moment, it's a big patch to include in a point
>> release.
>>>  >
>>>  > I'm glad the work was done tho because it means those interested
>> (like
>>>  > me) can directly patch it in and test it (at my own risk).
>>>  >
>>>  > J-D
>>>  >
>>>  > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>  > > Hi,
>>>  > > Bright Fulton has volunteered to backport HBASE-3777 to 0.90
>>>  > > I endorse his effort.
>>>  > >
>>>  > > If you have comment(s), please share.
>>>  > >
>>>  > > I will open a new JIRA for this effort if this motion passes.
>>>  > >
>>>  > > Thanks
>>>  > >
>>>  >
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

Mime
View raw message