Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52BB200C0E for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:07:40 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id C3B81160B52; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:40 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id E73F7160B46 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:07:39 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 50861 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2017 04:07:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tephra.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@tephra.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tephra.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 50849 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jan 2017 04:07:38 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3F975181A91 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.481 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.481 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6FhyT8hwMI94 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 7405C5F47A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id c206so5863213wme.0 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:07:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=H2P07I2Xa5RBt3pSdvWGzXQMp5F+zCDVtq+CcWoikHY=; b=cAtVoN9jvKMDPWiHGQ7fi/WaqRWgYAE84/k0fZXuZhnjrw8Z0N6QU4UiOTMYSF2HvY 0Z2Yyirxtl/UUVICZgVvTPbj2siK0bWsSo3N15yg2DkUIllUYZtxVgvuulTdFTAOrCG2 ObaSJnWaIMTLf7M9Ij/AdBF5JdikEG5OZ8Jm03simahmm2o1U/qQGe7YRTZ6z41hCXUk AxatfGHn2lMbTEKgHAKDJaqY2+4A6UsbUUSmifCfu4FqqpY6ySM0Z+bWyNKNEGqAF5wB v6zN8z9c5L1ME9xTN3+/JtUM8LfVyBmnSUMOuZLVA8+MrFoYom1kfNVLjkiCyrsVc8FW 8wiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=H2P07I2Xa5RBt3pSdvWGzXQMp5F+zCDVtq+CcWoikHY=; b=GvdK7c//EFA8JmmwShn6BJIN2xnLr36c2KjnrsVYjrlmUlpnvaeY2Tt78/6kbwNzE9 4f6KyFTutyCHJsegZdv7/um/xBr2zb7ZLhlVrltuo3MduARnCpe5TavR4mghV0aInrLq UIgJZOzxrl4y0tapsZLFVMAmQIkzZn3vJNxHeZgqXxkJ5PzOop888lGLfRl1p/6xq1Sx M6p6mrqUG0CLTYhEofvE3M9cef2RB8vaU0kfDqPrWL66WeSpw2+HwbVTkIaOwxfTljt6 N60Xd9ea9Zfwv487oASWZpXHV6nZLkWE11NUn52kSx5GGyYksmmNEPNruw6nDe8T2wKY 1GvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK3b68Xz7CvsXhkpebrluLAhr41u5ls/QaizZFLa824m4wdlTu8GtHP+dcuv6RVDCqRN0xHwoVgU969vg== X-Received: by 10.28.18.130 with SMTP id 124mr15481118wms.8.1484712438761; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:07:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: neunand@gmail.com Received: by 10.80.168.198 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:07:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andreas Neumann Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:07:18 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6egB0LOeK4aNa_BnQw9xf8ncEsU Message-ID: Subject: Re: What's our policy for Thrift changes? To: dev@tephra.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114697b0818ea30546568d6d archived-at: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 04:07:41 -0000 --001a114697b0818ea30546568d6d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi James, sorry for dropping the ball on this. For the specific Jira I was working on, I kept the old interface and introduced a new one that exposes more functionality. I agree that this should be standard practice. I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEPHRA-211 where we can discuss semantic versioning. Cheers -Andreas On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 9:35 AM, James Taylor wrote: > Hi Andreas, > I don't think semantic versioning slows down development. It's just a > convention so that your consumers know more of what to expect. Were you > thinking of letting consumers know in some other way when wire > compatibility breaks? Just release note it (easy to miss)? Or just not > letting them know at all (scary for consumers)? > > IMHO, only keeping wire compatibility for two consecutive versions is too > short. I can see that some bigger changes might cause a burden on > development, but what's the harm in this particular case of leaving the old > method around longer? If it's a bigger change, you might consider it a new > major release, though, in which case breaking compatibility is acceptable. > But the downside is that your consumers may not upgrade in that case. > > Cheers, > James > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote: > > > Hi James, > > > > I am not sure how soon Tephra can establish semantic versioning. That > > typically happens after a podling graduates from the incubator, and > Tephra > > has not had a 1.0 release yet. > > > > In the mean time, I agree that we should try to preserve the > compatibility > > with older clients, but I would not want that to slow down new > development. > > Would it be sufficient if we keep compatibility between two consecutive > > releases? > > > > For now, please take a look at > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tephra/pull/18 where I implemented > the > > "new method approach". > > > > Cheers -Andreas > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM, James Taylor > > wrote: > > > > > I meant that Phoenix can't pick up new Tephra releases that break wire > > > compatibility until Phoenix has a major release. > > > > > > I'd vote for the new method approach with the old method being > > deprecated. > > > > > > When you can remove deprecated methods is always tricky. IMHO, it'd be > > > great for Tephra to establish semantic versioning like Phoenix & HBase > so > > > that it's clear if/when wire compatibility may break (i.e. on major > > > releases) and/or deprecated methods are removed. > > > > > > Different projects follow different schemes, though. From the Guava > > > approach of removing deprecated methods often (and the nightmare that > > > creates for consumers IMHO) versus the HBase approach (which works > pretty > > > well IMHO). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > James > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Andreas Neumann > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > I assume you are talking about a major release of Phoenix. We do have > > to > > > > anticipate that improvements and new features in Tephra will require > > > Thrift > > > > changes. So what would be the process to coordinate that? > > > > - Does it mean that Tephra cannot make changes unless a major Phoenix > > > > release is expected? > > > > - Or does it mean Phoenix will not pick up new Tephra releases until > it > > > has > > > > a major release? > > > > > > > > For TEPHRA-194, we can introduce a new method - say > > > startShortWithTimeout() > > > > - that throws the new exception, and change the > > TransactionServiceClient > > > to > > > > use that new method. Old clients will call the old method > > > > startShortTimeout() and still work, but they won't get the improved > > > > exception handling. > > > > > > > > The question then is how long do we have to wait before we can remove > > the > > > > old method? > > > > > > > > Thanks -Andreas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM, James Taylor < > jamestaylor@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Andreas, > > > > > Phoenix can't assume that the client and server are the same > version > > as > > > > we > > > > > support rolling upgrades for patch and minor upgrades. It'd only be > > ok > > > > for > > > > > a major release. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016, Andreas Neumann > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > As part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEPHRA-194, it > > > would > > > > > make > > > > > > sense to introduce a new exception type in the thrift module. > That > > > may > > > > > > break wire compatibility with previous versions. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering what the current policy is for changing the Thrift > > > > > > protocol?Can we safely assume that - for now - the server and > > client > > > > will > > > > > > always be the same version of Tephra? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers -Andreas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --001a114697b0818ea30546568d6d--