hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Merge of shaded protobuf 3.1.0 (WAS => [DISCUSS] Shade protobuf so we can move to a newer version)
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2016 03:21:48 GMT
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> > If hadoop shaded its artifacts so no leakage whether an HDFS or YARN
> > context (or Spark -- Spark2 is pb2.5.0) and downstreamers made use of our
> > shaded artifacts everywhere then we could avoid this effort.
> >
> > Some form of isolation should show up in hadoop3 before it ships. My
> guess
> > is that it unlikely we'd get the backport in an hadoop2 even though
> hadoop
> > has tradtionally been 'relaxed' when it comes to compat across versions.
> An
> > hbase2 that required hadoop3 or even a 2.9 or 2.10 would be constraining.
> >
> >
> FWIW, we can still declare that only supported HBase client is the shaded
> client, and the non-shaded server / client will not work after 2.0. It
> should still allow MR jobs to work even without Hadoop's shading.
>
>
>
This would be good practice however it all works out.

(Chatting w/ Sean, it sounds like the isolation in hadoop3 will be less
than comprehensive -- client-side/driver-side only; he might show up here
w/ more info later).


>
> > The above is a big if and a dependency on another project's delivery.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> >
> > Meanwhile the offheap project need a more modern protobuf yesterday so
> they
> > can make progress.
> >
> > I suggest we commit this patch that lets us own when and on what we can
> > release. If the lay of the land changes substantially before we ship
> > hbase2, I promise to undo this patch.
> >
>
> Ok, let's not block the offheap effort and see whether the dev pain is
> worth it.
>
>
Thanks Enis.

I learned alot doing up this patch but do not like it. If an alternative
presents itself, I'll be first in line to go there.

I got a clean build finally out of builds.apache.org (which has been acting
up all w/e) on my HBASE-16264 jenkins job. Let me finish up this protobuf
chapter and then push this evening. There'll be teething issues I'm sure.

St.Ack



>
> >
> > What do you think Enis,
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Even if we could and they deliver, what about all of the already
> > deployed
> > > > 2.x? Or 3.x? Would a change like this get into 3? Or would it be
> pushed
> > > to
> > > > 4? So we wait until Hadoop 3 or maybe 4 is released *and* GA *and*
> out
> > > > there so long that telling people to get off 2 is is finally ok
> before
> > > > moving up to PB3 or getting the off heaping goodness? No, let's get
> > this
> > > > work in.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is PB only coming via HDFS client or there are other usages that
> > > pollute
> > > > > our classpath? We are doing all this gymnastics just because
> upstream
> > > > does
> > > > > not do shading is frustrating. Any idea for how likely we can push
> > > shaded
> > > > > hdfs to Hadoop? Should we focus on that instead rather than working
> > > > around
> > > > > the problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > Enis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The precommit job uses compile-protobuf profile for
> verification.
> > > The
> > > > > > > absence of compile-protobuf profile in hbase-protocol-shaded
> > module
> > > > > means
> > > > > > > precommit job would only invoke the existing compile-protobuf
> > > profile
> > > > > > > in hbase-protocol
> > > > > > > module.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > w.r.t. path, when two protoc executables (corresponding to 2.5
> and
> > > 3.x,
> > > > > > > respectively) are available, would maven know which one
to pick
> > for
> > > > > > > the hbase-protocol and hbase-protocol-shaded modules ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the former, right, nothing changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the latter, it is a contrivance, a problem we do not have.
The
> > > build
> > > > > > doesn't have to pick between pb 2.5 vs pb 3.1. We don't run
> protoc
> > as
> > > > > part
> > > > > > of our build. It is done apart from the build by the developer
> and
> > > > their
> > > > > > results are then checked-in. That continues as it was post-patch.
> > We
> > > > just
> > > > > > do 3.1 now instead of 2.5.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll check in a bit of doc as part of this commit that hopefully
> > will
> > > > > help
> > > > > > make this all clearer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looks like compile-protobuf profile is not in
> > > > > > > > hbase-protocol-shaded/pom.xml
> > > > > > > > > (in HBASE-16264 branch)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry. I don't get what you are saying here
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (The target in the new module is generate-sources.
See the
> > > included
> > > > > > > README.
> > > > > > > > This step does more work now more than just generating
> protocs,
> > > > hence
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > profile name.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Seems precommit jobs should pass with the current
> formation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you stating that this patch is likely to build?
(Yes, the
> > > > patch I
> > > > > > > > submitted builds).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the future, if we add another profile for
compiling
> proto3
> > > > > files,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > need to specify the path to proto3 compiler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't know what you are asking. Why do we have to
specify
> > > > 'paths'?
> > > > > We
> > > > > > > > don't have to currently (See the plugin we use generating
> > protos
> > > > now
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > hadoop). Maybe you are trying to distinguish the production
> of
> > > > > > > protobuf2.5
> > > > > > > > vs 3.1 protos but these are isolated by module....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I said I'd commit this morning but let me wait a while.
There
> > may
> > > > be
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > more questions/objections and I'd like to have a clean
build
> up
> > > on
> > > > > > > jenkins
> > > > > > > > here [1] before I commit (jenkins is being ornery).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-16264/jdk=JDK%201.8%20(
> > > > > > > > latest),label=yahoo-not-h2/28/console
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Service Unavailable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The server is temporarily unable to service your
> > > > > > > > request due to maintenance downtime or capacity
> > > > > > > > problems. Please try again later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The protoc generated files (such as MasterProtos)
are
> > checked
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > repo, right ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do we need proto3 on the precommit image(s)
?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:18 AM, 张铎 <
> palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Then I think we need to file an issue
to change the
> protoc
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > >> installed in the precommit docker file
to 3.x before the
> > > > merge.
> > > > > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > > >> the precommit build for protoc check
maybe broken after
> > the
> > > > > > merge...
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> 2016-10-03 1:18 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell
<
> > > > > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > I have 2.5 and 3.0 installed as
> /opt/protobuf-<version>,
> > > and
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > bash
> > > > > > > > > >> > scripts that add the appropriate
version's bin
> directory
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > path.
> > > > > > > > > >> Not
> > > > > > > > > >> > particularly onerous as I also
have to switch between
> > > > required
> > > > > > JDK
> > > > > > > > > >> > versions, so the scripts also set
JAVA_HOME at and add
> > JDK
> > > > bin
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> path
> > > > > > > > > >> > for the required JDK for the build.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Unlike with the scala compiler,
which is after all JVM
> > > > > bytecode
> > > > > > > at a
> > > > > > > > > >> > fundamental level, I don't think
maven automation for
> > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > download
> > > > > > > > > >> > and execution is possible. protoc
is a native binary.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:30 PM,
张铎 <
> > palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Do we need to install protoc
3.0 manully before
> > building
> > > > > HBase
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > maven
> > > > > > > > > >> > > protobuf plugin will automatically
download the
> protoc
> > > > > > compiler?
> > > > > > > > > >> Maybe we
> > > > > > > > > >> > > need to install protoc 3.0
in the precommit docker
> > file.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > 2016-10-02 14:20 GMT+08:00
张铎 <
> palomino219@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> 2016-10-02 0:50 GMT+08:00
Stack <stack@duboce.net
> >:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> On Sat, Oct 1,
2016 at 7:20 AM, 张铎 <
> > > > > palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> Can we setup a
compatibility checker job in
> > jenkins?
> > > > > Start
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> minicluster in
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> one process, and
use a client in another process
> to
> > > > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> The version of
the client should be >= 0.98 and
> <=
> > > the
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> minicluster. Of
course we need to design the
> > testing
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > > >> carefully to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> sure that we have
tested all the cases.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> +1. We need this up
and running before we put out
> an
> > > > > > > > hbase-2.0.0.
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >> > know
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Matteo does this test
manually on a regular basis
> > but
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> formalization
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> would
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> help. I can add an
exercise of Coprocessor
> > Endpoints.
> > > I
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >> > is on
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Dima's list of TODOs
but will let him speak for
> > > himself.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> And also I think
we should make sure that no
> proto3
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> introduced in
our proto files until branch-1 is
> > dead.
> > > > > > Maybe a
> > > > > > > > > >> > precommit
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> check?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> I think you mean wire-format
breaking changes?
> > Agree.
> > > > We
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > >> PB3
> > > > > > > > > >> > set
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> to 2.5 compat mode
and yes, we can't move on from
> > this
> > > > > until
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> place where we can
say no to 2.5 clients.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> Yes, for example, pb2.5
does not support map so we
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > >> map in
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> our proto files.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Making use of PB3isms
cannot be avoided. PB3.1
> adds
> > a
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > >> > replacement
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> for our HBaseZeroCopyByteString/ByteStringer
> hack.
> > It
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > adds
> > > > > > > > > >> > 'unsafe'
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> methods that we need
to exploit if we are to keep
> > our
> > > > > > > read/write
> > > > > > > > > >> paths
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> offheap.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> St.Ack
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> 2016-10-01 11:55
GMT+08:00 Sean Busbey <
> > > > > > busbey@cloudera.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> have we experimentally
confirmed that wire
> > > > compatibility
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> maintained?
I saw one mention of expecting wire
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> fine, but
nothing with someone using e.g. the
> > > > > clusterdock
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> something
to mix servers / clients or do
> > > replication.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> On Fri,
Sep 30, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Stack <
> > > > > stack@duboce.net
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I intend
to do a mass commit late this weekend
> > that
> > > > > moves
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> to a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> shaded
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protobuf-3.1.0,
either Sunday night or Monday
> > > > morning.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> If objection,
please speak up or if need more
> > time
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> consideration/review,
just shout.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I want
to merge the branch HBASE-16264 into
> > master
> > > > (it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> here
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> up
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> on jenkins
https://builds.apache.org/view
> > > > > > > > > >> /H-L/view/HBase/job/HBASE-
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> 16264/).
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> The branch
at HBASE-16264 has three significant
> > > > > > > > bodies-of-work
> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> unfortunately
are tangled and can only go in
> of a
> > > > > piece.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16264
<https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16264
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> The
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> shading
of our protobuf usage so we can upgrade
> > > > and/or
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> patched
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protobuf
WITHOUT breaking REST, Spark, and in
> > > > > particular,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Coprocessor
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Endpoints.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16567
<https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16567
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> A
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> move
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> up on
to (shaded) protobuf-3.1.0
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16741
<https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16741
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> An
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> amendment
of our generate protobufs step to
> > include
> > > > > > shading
> > > > > > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> bundling
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> of protobuf
src (with a means of calling a
> patch
> > > srcs
> > > > > > hook)
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Together
we're talking about 40MB of change
> > mostly
> > > > made
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> movement
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> generated
files or the application of a pattern
> > > that
> > > > > > alters
> > > > > > > > > >> where we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> get
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> imports
from. When done, you should notice no
> > > > > difference
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> able
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> to go
about your business as per usual. Upside
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> able
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> avoid
coming onheap doing protobuf
> > > > > > > marshalling/unmarshalling
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> protobuf
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> 2.5.0
requires. Downside is that we repeat a
> good
> > > > > portion
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> internal
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protos,
once non-shaded so Coprocessor
> Endpoints
> > > can
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> then
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> again
as shaded for internal use.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I provide
some more overview below on the
> > changes.
> > > > See
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> shading
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> doc
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> here:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> > > > > > > 1H4NgLXQ9Y9KejwobddCqaVME
> > > > > > > > > >> DCGby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> DcXtdF5iAfDIEk/edit#
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> for more
detail (Patches are up on review board
> > --
> > > > > except
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> latest
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> HBASE-16264
which is too big for JIRA and RB).
> I
> > am
> > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> working
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> on
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> devs chapter
for the book on protobuf going
> > forward
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> part
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> of this
patch.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> St.Ack
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Items
of note:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * Two
new modules; one named
> > hbase-protocol-shaded
> > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> hbase
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> core.
It has in it a shaded (and later patched)
> > > > > protobuf.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >> other
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> module
is hbase-endpoint which goes after
> > > > hbase-server
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > >> those
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> bundled
endpoints that I was able to break out
> of
> > > > core
> > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > >> are a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> few
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> that are
hopelessly entangled that need to be
> > > undone
> > > > as
> > > > > > > CPEPs
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> fortunately
belong in core: Auth, Access,
> > > MultiRow).
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * I've
tested running a branch-1 CPEP against a
> > > > master
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> patches
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> in place
and stuff like ACL (A CPEP) run from
> the
> > > > > > branch-1
> > > > > > > > > shell
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> work
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> against
the branch-2 server.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> On
Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Stack <
> > > > > > stack@duboce.net>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> This
project goes on. I updated HBASE-1563
> > "Shade
> > > > > > > protobuf"
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> some
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> doc
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> on
a final approach. We need to be able to
> refer
> > > to
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > shaded
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> non-shaded
protobuf so we can support sending
> > HDFS
> > > > > > > > old-school
> > > > > > > > > pb
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Messages
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> but
also so Coprocessor Endpoints keep working
> > > > though
> > > > > > > > > internally
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> protobufs
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> have
been relocated. Funny you should ask, but
> > > yes,
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> some
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> downsides
(as predicted by contributors on the
> > > > JIRA).
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> interested
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> hear
if they are too burdensome. In
> particular,
> > > your
> > > > > IDE
> > > > > > > > > >> experience
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> gets a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> little
convoluted as you will need to add to
> > your
> > > > > build
> > > > > > > > path,
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> jar
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> with
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> the
relocated pbs. A pain.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> St.Ack
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Stack <
> > > > > > stack@duboce.net
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sean Busbey
> <
> > > > > > > > > >> busbey@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Stack <
> > > > > > > stack@duboce.net
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
On an initial pass, the only difficult part
> > > seems
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> interaction
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
with
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
HDFS in asyncwal (might just pull in the
> HDFS
> > > > > > > messages).
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
I have some idea how we can make this work
> > > either
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > pushing
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> asyncwal
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
upstream to HDFS or through some maven
> tricks,
> > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> how
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
time we have.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
Maven tricks? Tell us more. Here or drop a
> note
> > > up
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> issue.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
Thanks Sean,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
St.Ack
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> busbey
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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