hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?
Date Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:59:40 GMT
I agree we need both, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
It's not something we paid a lot of attention to especially being forward-binary-compatible.
I would guess that there will be many more of these issues.

Also, we have to qualify this statement somewhere. If you extend HRegionServer you cannot
expect compatibility between releases. Of course that is silly, but it serves the point I
am making.

For client visible classes (such as in this case) we should make it work, we identifies issues
with Filters and Coprocessors in the past and kept them binary compatible on a best effort

TL;DR: Let's fix this issue, and be wary of more such issues.

-- Lars

 From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> 
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?
"Compatible" implies both to my understanding of the term, unless

I don't think we should qualify it. This looks like a regression to me.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:

> tl;dr should two compatible versions be considered both wire and
> binary compatible or just the former?
> Hey devs,
> 0.92 is compatible with 0.94, meaning that you can run a client for
> either against the other and you can roll restart from 0.92 to 0.94.
> What about binary compatibility? Meaning, can you run user code
> compiled against 0.92 with 0.94's jars?
> Unfortunately, the answer is "no" in this case if you invoke setters
> on HColumnDescriptor as you'll get:
> java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HColumnDescriptor.setMaxVersions(I)V
> HBASE-5357 "Use builder pattern in HColumnDescriptor" changed the
> method signatures by changing "void" to "HColumnDescriptor" so it' not
> the same methods anymore.
> I don't think we really had talks about binary compatibility before so
> this is why I'm raising it up now.
> Should "compatible" versions be just wire compatible or both wire and
> binary compatible? The latter means we need new tests. I think it
> should be both.
> What do you guys think?
> J-D

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message