hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Upgrading core dependencies
Date Wed, 08 Feb 2017 03:48:43 GMT
bq. Better to start using the new API's available in Java 8

+1 to the above.
If no new Guava construct is introduced and we replace current Guava usage
with Java 8 counterpart(s), in the future we can get rid of Guava

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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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...
> 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.
> >

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