hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Date Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:54:19 GMT
Here is an example of something that might work: http://pastebin.com/t9Bbe1F6

My understanding is if you add methods at the end of an interface definition, the interface
will remain compatible with a client compiled against the earlier version.

This is based on our 0.90-ish internal branch so won't match up quite right with 0.90. Unit
tests still pass. I haven't checked yet if indeed it will work with our client apps that use
HRI#bulkLoadHFile.

  - Andy
 
From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>; "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:34 PM
>Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>
>> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't work.
>
>-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
>
>IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>   - Andy
>
>
>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
>>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>>
>>Hi,
>>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
>>
>>From Jonathan:
>>
>>I was leaning towards either
>>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
>>version)
>>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90 since
>>it breaks compatibility
>>
>>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
>>work.
>>
>>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message