hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matteo Bertozzi <theo.berto...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Note breaking change on RegionObserver in hbase-2.0.0 (HBASE-15296 nice cleanup/refactor)
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:43:04 GMT
If we change the coprocessor API we should consider a better
naming/semantic. see HBASE-6992

pre/postOperation doesn't do what the user want because the post is not
really post.
our execution in genereal is:

   - pre operation (rpc thread)
   - submit operation
   - post operation (rpc thread)
   - [pre operation (handler thread)]
   - [post operation (handler thread)]

for the user the pre and post should probably be the actual pre/post.
which means pre (rpc thread) and post (handler thread).

also, today on failure we don't have a post operation.
which means that if someone does something in the pre operation there is no
way to rollback that on failure.
so, we should also add something like a "post operation failure".



Matteo


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think a major version increment is when we've allowed ourselves leeway
> to
> > make breaking changes. If we were to do this though I'd like to see us
> roll
> > in as many as we can at once.
> >
> >
> Agreed.
>
> I suppose I'm opening the flood gates so bring on your CP changes in time
> for 2.0!
>
>
>
> > By the way, we are still sometimes breaking CPs without meaning to. I
> think
> > we messed up the RpcScheduler LimitedPrivate interface in 1.2 with
> > HBASE-15146, which added a return type to RpcScheduler#dispatch, and
> breaks
> > Phoenix. Would you lot be interested in setting up a Jenkins job that
> uses
> > Phoenix to watch for accidental breakage? It's not comprehensive of
> course
> > but might be the closest available thing to it.
> >
> >
> Probably no harm. Phoenix would be the canary. As long as someone looks at
> it though? It'd be branch-1 job?
>
> St.Ack
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > We cool w/ this?
> > >
> > > (I know we keep saying it over and over again that its fine to break
> CPs
> > > w/o deprecation but still uneasy doing the actual breakage.... hence
> the
> > > note here.)
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>

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