phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoffrey Jacoby <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Unifying the 4.x branches
Date Fri, 07 Feb 2020 18:31:10 GMT
If unification could be done, that would be great. (I apologize that I
haven't had the bandwidth over the past week or two to take a close look at
the work Istvan has been doing to unify the 5.x branches -- as one who
spends too much time cherry-picking I very much appreciate this effort! :-)

I still think the hardest part, as I think I mentioned in some previous
thread, is what to do when the HBase coprocs themselves diverge between
minor versions, as they can do. How do you handle the fact that
RegionObserver.preWALAppend exists in 1.5 but not 1.3 and 1.4, and will
exist in 2.3 but not 2.2 and 2.1? And that therefore any features that
depend on preWALAppend existing (none yet, but they're coming later this
year) will work in a 1.5 or 2.3 environment, but not a 1.4 or 2.2 one?

Since our coprocessors tend to be giant monoliths, trying to create
release-based versions of them selectable by maven profile would
either require lots of developer copy/paste for each change, or a
significant (probably long overdue) refactor to make the coprocs small
shims that call out to smaller, fine-grained classes that can occasionally
be release-specific.


On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:31 AM Josh Elser <> wrote:

> Sounds like a good idea to me.
> On 2/6/20 8:40 AM, Istvan Toth wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Now that we have a working solution in master for handling different
> HBase
> > minor versions, I think that we should think about applying the same
> > template to 4.x., and unifying the 4.x-HBase-1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 branches.
> >
> > Are there any intentional differences between the branches, apart from
> > having to conform to the slightly different APIs ?
> > If there are, what are they, and are they considered blockers?
> >
> > Any other reasons not do this ?
> >
> > I expect that based on my experience with the master branch, I can do
> this
> > in a few days, but I don't want to put in the effort if there is no
> > interest in it.
> >
> > My plan is to take the 1.5 branch as a base.
> >
> > best regards
> > Istvan
> >

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