You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> on 2014/04/02 06:31:32 UTC
protobuf version in 0.94
Is anybody aware of any reason why we wouldn't just update the protobuf version in 0.94 to 2.5.0?
I know 2.5.0 is backward compatible with 2.4.0, but is the reverse true as well?
I.e. if we do not change any .proto files will 2.4.0 be able to decoded message encoded with 2.5.0?
If yes, we should just upgrade. If not we can't upgrade since it would potentially break server-server compatibility and hence rolling upgrades.
-- Lars
Re: protobuf version in 0.94
Posted by Aditya <ad...@gmail.com>.
The protobuf Java stubs checked into the source tree are compiled with
2.4.x and are not binary compatible with 2.5 (and vice versa) so we would
need two versions of stubs.
The wire format, however, is compatible in either direction.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:51 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> I didn't say that right.
>
> What I meant was: If I added Hadoop 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 profiles, and in
> those profiles override the protobuf version... There should be no issue
> with that, correct? The default protobuf version would remove 2.4.x.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>
> To: dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 5:03 AM
> Subject: Re: protobuf version in 0.94
>
>
> Hum, that means Hadoop 1.0.x and 1.2.x branches will fail...
>
>
>
> 2014-04-02 2:53 GMT-04:00 Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>:
>
> > For HBase itself is not a problem :) it compiles, but users running HBase
> > 0.94.x in clusters pre HADOOP-9845 they will hit issues during rolling
> > restarts specially if the 2.4.0 jar is present. For instance, that can
> > break MR jobs.
> >
> > esteban.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cloudera, Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Is anybody aware of any reason why we wouldn't just update the protobuf
> > > version in 0.94 to 2.5.0?
> > >
> > > I know 2.5.0 is backward compatible with 2.4.0, but is the reverse true
> > as
> > > well?
> > > I.e. if we do not change any .proto files will 2.4.0 be able to decoded
> > > message encoded with 2.5.0?
> > > If yes, we should just upgrade. If not we can't upgrade since it would
> > > potentially break server-server compatibility and hence rolling
> upgrades.
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> >
>
Re: protobuf version in 0.94
Posted by lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>.
I didn't say that right.
What I meant was: If I added Hadoop 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 profiles, and in those profiles override the protobuf version... There should be no issue with that, correct? The default protobuf version would remove 2.4.x.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>
To: dev <de...@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: protobuf version in 0.94
Hum, that means Hadoop 1.0.x and 1.2.x branches will fail...
2014-04-02 2:53 GMT-04:00 Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>:
> For HBase itself is not a problem :) it compiles, but users running HBase
> 0.94.x in clusters pre HADOOP-9845 they will hit issues during rolling
> restarts specially if the 2.4.0 jar is present. For instance, that can
> break MR jobs.
>
> esteban.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cloudera, Inc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Is anybody aware of any reason why we wouldn't just update the protobuf
> > version in 0.94 to 2.5.0?
> >
> > I know 2.5.0 is backward compatible with 2.4.0, but is the reverse true
> as
> > well?
> > I.e. if we do not change any .proto files will 2.4.0 be able to decoded
> > message encoded with 2.5.0?
> > If yes, we should just upgrade. If not we can't upgrade since it would
> > potentially break server-server compatibility and hence rolling upgrades.
> >
> > -- Lars
>
Re: protobuf version in 0.94
Posted by Jean-Marc Spaggiari <je...@spaggiari.org>.
Hum, that means Hadoop 1.0.x and 1.2.x branches will fail...
2014-04-02 2:53 GMT-04:00 Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>:
> For HBase itself is not a problem :) it compiles, but users running HBase
> 0.94.x in clusters pre HADOOP-9845 they will hit issues during rolling
> restarts specially if the 2.4.0 jar is present. For instance, that can
> break MR jobs.
>
> esteban.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cloudera, Inc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Is anybody aware of any reason why we wouldn't just update the protobuf
> > version in 0.94 to 2.5.0?
> >
> > I know 2.5.0 is backward compatible with 2.4.0, but is the reverse true
> as
> > well?
> > I.e. if we do not change any .proto files will 2.4.0 be able to decoded
> > message encoded with 2.5.0?
> > If yes, we should just upgrade. If not we can't upgrade since it would
> > potentially break server-server compatibility and hence rolling upgrades.
> >
> > -- Lars
>
Re: protobuf version in 0.94
Posted by Esteban Gutierrez <es...@cloudera.com>.
For HBase itself is not a problem :) it compiles, but users running HBase
0.94.x in clusters pre HADOOP-9845 they will hit issues during rolling
restarts specially if the 2.4.0 jar is present. For instance, that can
break MR jobs.
esteban.
--
Cloudera, Inc.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote:
> Is anybody aware of any reason why we wouldn't just update the protobuf
> version in 0.94 to 2.5.0?
>
> I know 2.5.0 is backward compatible with 2.4.0, but is the reverse true as
> well?
> I.e. if we do not change any .proto files will 2.4.0 be able to decoded
> message encoded with 2.5.0?
> If yes, we should just upgrade. If not we can't upgrade since it would
> potentially break server-server compatibility and hence rolling upgrades.
>
> -- Lars