[DISCUSS] Hive API passivity

["kulkarni.swarnim@gmail.com" <ku...@gmail.com>]

While reviewing some of the recent patches, I came across a few with
non-passive changes and or discussion around them. I was wondering what
kind of passivity guarantees should we provide to our consumers? I
understand that Hive API is probably not as widely used as some of its
peers in the ecosystem like HBase. But should that be something we should
start thinking on especially around user facing interfaces like UDFs,
SerDes, StorageHandlers etc? More so given that we are 1.0 now?
IMO we should avoid doing any of such changes and/or if we have to do so
with a major version bump for the next release.

Thoughts?

-- 
Swarnim

Re: [DISCUSS] Hive API passivity

[Thejas Nair <th...@gmail.com>]

By passivity do you mean backward compatibility ?
Not all API's have same level of maturity, and the audience for them
can also be different.

Public api's are supposed to be marked with the annotations under
org.apache.hadoop.hive.common.classification.InterfaceAudience as
Public, and the expectations regarding backward compatibility set
using InterfaceStability annotations.

For example, the UDF apis should be marked as @Public and @Stable.
However, api's for new functionality might be marked @unstable or
@evolving.



On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:19 AM, kulkarni.swarnim@gmail.com
<ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While reviewing some of the recent patches, I came across a few with
> non-passive changes and or discussion around them. I was wondering what
> kind of passivity guarantees should we provide to our consumers? I
> understand that Hive API is probably not as widely used as some of its
> peers in the ecosystem like HBase. But should that be something we should
> start thinking on especially around user facing interfaces like UDFs,
> SerDes, StorageHandlers etc? More so given that we are 1.0 now?
> IMO we should avoid doing any of such changes and/or if we have to do so
> with a major version bump for the next release.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Swarnim