You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by John Vines <jo...@ugov.gov> on 2012/03/22 21:45:05 UTC
Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing?
Well, I spoke two soon. There are two pending tickets on my plate
(Accumulo-404, running on top of kerberoized hdfs and Accumulo-489,
passwords are not secured with input format) that are a lot easier to
implement, if not only feasible, against 20.203+ (CDH3u0+). It is possible
to do version checking within the code and then calling via reflection, but
that is ugly, ugly code that I think we'd be best to avoid. So I ask the
community, do we have any reasons NOT to migrate our minimum version to
20.203 now that we have a need for a newer version?
John
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Robert Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com> wrote:
> I was just interested since 0.20.2 is now two years old if there was any
> compelling reason (other than QA requirements) to stay with that version
>
> Rob
>
> Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc
> Software Engineer, Bay Area
> m: 925.960.3941 | o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com | Skype:
> rvesse
> 6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd | Suite 120 | Pleasanton CA, 94588
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:26 PM, John Vines wrote:
>
> We don't depend on any specific features of 20.205, so I don't know why
> we need to update the minimum version. I know many of us have been working
> with 20.205 without issue.
>
> John
>
> Sent from my phone, so pardon the typos and brevity.
> On Mar 20, 2012 2:50 PM, "Robert Vesse" <rv...@yarcdata.com> wrote:
>
>> I haven't looked at the 1.4 branch in detail, did you guys move to a
>> newer version of Hadoop as well, the 1.3.5 release uses the comparatively
>> ancient 0.20.2 version of Hadoop
>>
>> Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com -- A Division of Cray Inc
>> Software Engineer, Bay Area
>> m: 925.960.3941 | o: 925.264.4729 | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com | Skype:
>> rvesse
>> 6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd | Suite 120 | Pleasanton CA, 94588
>>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the 1.4 branch is considered stable.
>>
>> We've been pounding on 1.4 for quite a while. The scale of the testing
>> has over a longer period of time, more complete and more aggressive.
>> Another team has been using it for some benchmark testing at scale, and it
>> is remarkable for the *lack* of problems.
>>
>> No, you cannot mix 1.3 clients with 1.4 servers. We jumped from 0.3 of
>> thrift to 0.6.1, and that was a huge change for us; I'm not even sure if it
>> can be on-the-wire compatible. Our goal is to ensure compatibility for
>> 1.X.* level for any constant X. But a switch from 1.X to 1.Y... we'll
>> remove deprecated APIs, and break on-the-wire compatibility.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Is the 1.4.0 branch considered stable enough for use? And is it the
>>> API compatible between 1.3.5 and 1.4.0 or do both the database and the
>>> client need to be on the exact same version for communication to work
>>> correctly?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, John Vines wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe we don't have them distributed because our poms do not include
>>> adequate licensing info for us to publicly release them. 1.4.0 should be
>>> released when we release it though.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Robert Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a reason why Maven artifacts for 1.3.5 are not available in
>>>> the Apache repositories?
>>>>
>>>> Which Maven repositories (if any) are they available in?
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing?
Posted by "Cardon, Tejay E" <te...@lmco.com>.
I believe it would be in our best interest to move to .203+ in order to benefit from Kerberos security.
From: John Vines [mailto:john.w.vines@ugov.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:45 PM
To: accumulo-user@incubator.apache.org; accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Maven Artifacts for 1.3.5 missing?
Well, I spoke two soon. There are two pending tickets on my plate (Accumulo-404, running on top of kerberoized hdfs and Accumulo-489, passwords are not secured with input format) that are a lot easier to implement, if not only feasible, against 20.203+ (CDH3u0+). It is possible to do version checking within the code and then calling via reflection, but that is ugly, ugly code that I think we'd be best to avoid. So I ask the community, do we have any reasons NOT to migrate our minimum version to 20.203 now that we have a need for a newer version?
John
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Robert Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>> wrote:
I was just interested since 0.20.2 is now two years old if there was any compelling reason (other than QA requirements) to stay with that version
Rob
Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com<http://YarcData.com> -- A Division of Cray Inc
Software Engineer, Bay Area
m: 925.960.3941<tel:925.960.3941> | o: 925.264.4729<tel:925.264.4729> | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com<ma...@yarcdata.com> | Skype: rvesse
6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd | Suite 120 | Pleasanton CA, 94588
On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:26 PM, John Vines wrote:
We don't depend on any specific features of 20.205, so I don't know why we need to update the minimum version. I know many of us have been working with 20.205 without issue.
John
Sent from my phone, so pardon the typos and brevity.
On Mar 20, 2012 2:50 PM, "Robert Vesse" <rv...@yarcdata.com>> wrote:
I haven't looked at the 1.4 branch in detail, did you guys move to a newer version of Hadoop as well, the 1.3.5 release uses the comparatively ancient 0.20.2 version of Hadoop
Rob Vesse -- YarcData.com<http://YarcData.com/> -- A Division of Cray Inc
Software Engineer, Bay Area
m: 925.960.3941<tel:925.960.3941> | o: 925.264.4729<tel:925.264.4729> | @: rvesse@yarcdata.com<ma...@yarcdata.com> | Skype: rvesse
6210 Stoneridge Mall Rd | Suite 120 | Pleasanton CA, 94588
On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton wrote:
Yes, the 1.4 branch is considered stable.
We've been pounding on 1.4 for quite a while. The scale of the testing has over a longer period of time, more complete and more aggressive. Another team has been using it for some benchmark testing at scale, and it is remarkable for the *lack* of problems.
No, you cannot mix 1.3 clients with 1.4 servers. We jumped from 0.3 of thrift to 0.6.1, and that was a huge change for us; I'm not even sure if it can be on-the-wire compatible. Our goal is to ensure compatibility for 1.X.* level for any constant X. But a switch from 1.X to 1.Y... we'll remove deprecated APIs, and break on-the-wire compatibility.
-Eric
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>> wrote:
Is the 1.4.0 branch considered stable enough for use? And is it the API compatible between 1.3.5 and 1.4.0 or do both the database and the client need to be on the exact same version for communication to work correctly?
Rob
On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, John Vines wrote:
I believe we don't have them distributed because our poms do not include adequate licensing info for us to publicly release them. 1.4.0 should be released when we release it though.
John
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Robert Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>> wrote:
Is there a reason why Maven artifacts for 1.3.5 are not available in the Apache repositories?
Which Maven repositories (if any) are they available in?
Rob