hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Upgrading core dependencies
Date Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:30:17 GMT
Minor point, but I maintain we don't want to make coprocessors like osgi or built on osgi.
I think we still want to scope them as extension mixins, not an inner platform. We see the
limitations (limited API compatibility guarantees for internals by definition) over on Phoenix
but it's the right trade off for HBase in my opinion. We can still help implementors by refactoring
to stable supported interfaces as motivated on a case by case basis, like what we did with
HRegion -> Region. 

Let's get rid of all Guava types in any public or LP API. 

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> Thanks Nick and Duo.
> See below.
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For the client: I'm a fan of shaded client modules by default and
>> minimizing the exposure of that surface area of 3rd party libs (none, if
>> possible). For example, Elastic Search has a similar set of challenges, the
>> solve it by advocating users shade from step 1. It's addressed first thing
>> in the docs for their client libs. We could take it a step further by
>> making the shaded client the default client (o.a.hbase:hbase-client)
>> artifact and internally consume an hbase-client-unshaded. Turns the whole
>> thing on it's head in a way that's better for the naive user.
> I like this idea. Let me try it out. Our shaded thingies are not 'air
> tight' enough yet I suspect but maybe we can fix this. Making it so clients
> don't have to include hbase-server too will be a little harder (will try
> flipping this too so it always shaded by default).
>> For MR/Spark/etc connectors: We're probably stuck as it is until necessary
>> classes can be extracted from hbase-server. I haven't looked into this
>> lately, so I hesitate to give a prescription.
> This was last attempt and the contributor did a good job at sizing the
> effort: HBASE-11843.
>> For coprocessors: They forfeit their right to 3rd party library dependency
>> stability by entering our process space. Maybe in 3.0 or 4.0 we can rebuild
>> on jigsaw or OSGi, but for today I think the best we should do is provide
>> relatively stable internal APIs. I also find it unlikely that we'd want to
>> spend loads of cycles optimizing for this usecase. There's other, bigger
>> fish, IMHO.
> Agree.
>> For size/compile time: I think these ultimately matter less than user
>> experience. Let's find a solution that sucks less for downstreamers and
>> work backward on reducing bloat.
>> I like how you put it.
>> On the point of leaning heavily on Guava: their pace is traditionally too
>> fast for us to expose in any public API. Maybe that's changing, in which
>> case we could reconsider for 3.0. Better to start using the new API's
>> available in Java 8...
> I like what Duo says here that we just not expose these libs in our API.
> Yeah, we can do jdk8 new APIs but guava is something else (there is some
> small overlap in functional idioms -- we can favor jdk8 here -- but guava
> has a bunch more it'd be good to make use of).
> Anyways, I was using Guava as illustration of a larger issue.
> Thanks again for the input you two,
> S
>> Thanks for taking this up, Stack.
>> -n
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:22 PM Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>>> Here's an old thorny issue that won't go away. I'd like to hear what
>> folks
>>> are thinking these times.
>>> My immediate need is that I want to upgrade Guava [1]. I want to move us
>> to
>>> guava 21.0, the latest release [2]. We currently depend on guava 12.0.
>>> Hadoop's guava -- 11.0 -- is also on our CLASSPATH (three times). We
>> could
>>> just do it in an hbase-2.0.0, a major version release, but then
>>> downstreamers and coprocessors that may have been a little lazy and that
>>> have transitively come to depend on our versions of libs will break [3].
>>> Then there is the murky area around the running of YARN/MR/Spark jobs
>> where
>>> the ordering of libs on the CLASSPATH gets interesting where fat-jaring
>> or
>>> command-line antics can get you over (most) problems if you persevere.
>>> Multiply the above by netty, jackson, and a few other favorites.
>>> Our proffered solution to the above is the shaded hbase artifact project;
>>> have applications and tasks refer to the shaded hbase client instead.
>>> Because we've not done the work to narrow the surface area we expose to
>>> downstreamers, most consumers of our API -- certainly in a spark/MR
>> context
>>> since our MR utility is buried in hbase-server module still -- need both
>>> the shaded hbase client and server on their CLASSPATH (i.e. near all of
>>> hbase).
>>> Leaving aside for the moment that our shaded client and server need
>>> untangling, getting folks up on the shaded artifacts takes effort
>>> evangelizing. We also need to be doing work to make sure our shading
>>> doesn't leak dependencies, that it works for all deploy scenarios, and
>> that
>>> this route forward is well doc'd, and so on.
>>> I don't see much evidence of our pushing the shaded artifacts route nor
>> of
>>> their being used. What is the perception of others?
>>> I played with adding a new module to host shaded 3rd party libs[4]. The
>>> downsides are a couple; would have to internally, refer to the offset
>>> version of the lib and we bulk up our tarball by a bunch of megs (Build
>>> gets a few seconds longer, not much). Upside is that we can float over a
>>> variety of hadoop/spark versions using whatever guava or netty we want;
>>> downstreamers and general users should have an easier time of it too
>>> because they'll be less likely to run into library clashes. is this
>> project
>>> worth finishing?
>>> WDYT?
>>> St.Ack
>>> 1. I wanted to make use of the protobuf to-json tool. It is in the
>>> extra-jar, protobuf-util. It requires a guava 16.0.
>>> 2. Guava is a quality lib that should be at the core of all our dev but
>> we
>>> are gun shy around using it because it semver's with gusto at a rate that
>>> is orders of magnitude in advance of the Hadoop/HBase cadence.
>>> 3. We are trying to minimize breakage when we go to hbase-2.0.0.
>>> 4. HBASE-15749 suggested this but was shutdown because it made no case
>> for
>>> why we'd want to do it.

View raw message