hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Rolling restart from 0.92 to 0.94
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2013 22:08:35 GMT
Link to this discussion we had in April about binary compatibility:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/Lg90wHGW981


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com> wrote:

> My two cents: if we want to ensure we're backward compatible, we need to do
> two things: define clear boundaries of the classes and/or packages to which
> this applies, and run automated tests that verify that backward
> compatibility is maintained across point releases. Or maybe we have this
> and I'm not aware of it? The way that APIs are annotated in the later
> branches as public/private/evolving is a good thing, but unfortunately
> doesn't apply to the 0.94 branch. Maybe that could be back-ported?
>
> James
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:00 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Shrijeet Paliwal just pointed me to this section in the HBase
> bookhttp://
> > > hbase.apache.org/upgrading.html#upgrade0.94 (thanks Shrijeet):
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > 1.3. Upgrading from 0.92.x to 0.94.x
> > > We used to think that 0.92 and 0.94 were interface compatible and that
> > you
> > > can do a rolling upgrade between these versions but then we figured
> that
> > > HBASE-5357 Use builder pattern in HColumnDescriptor changed method
> > > signatures so rather than return void they instead return
> > > HColumnDescriptor.  This will throw
> > > java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
> > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HColumnDescriptor.setMaxVersions(I)V
> > > .... so 0.92 and 0.94 are NOT compatible.  You cannot do a rolling
> > upgrade
> > > between them.
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that statement actually correct? The issue here is binary code
> > > compatibility, which we indeed do not support, but which does not
> impede
> > > rolling upgrades between versions (as long as we're wire compatible
> > between
> > > releases, which we are).
> > >
> >
> > The statement overreaches with its absolute that the two are NOT
> > compatible.  If someone suggests text, I'll update the refguide.
> > St.Ack
> >
>

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