You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> on 2011/10/31 20:57:01 UTC
backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Hi,
HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
>From Jonathan:
I was leaning towards either
1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
version)
2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90 since
it breaks compatibility
Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
work.
I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
Thanks
Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Posted by Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>.
I was able to get tests HBASE-4552 specific running on 0.90.x with Andrew's
patch to 0.90 with a minor tweak to the HFile instantiation code and with a
backport of HBASE-3316 (allows Pair to be serialized and sent across the
RPC protocol).
Jon.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Here is an example of something that might work:
> http://pastebin.com/t9Bbe1F6
>
> My understanding is if you add methods at the end of an interface
> definition, the interface will remain compatible with a client compiled
> against the earlier version.
>
> This is based on our 0.90-ish internal branch so won't match up quite
> right with 0.90. Unit tests still pass. I haven't checked yet if indeed it
> will work with our client apps that use HRI#bulkLoadHFile.
>
> - Andy
>
> From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <us...@hbase.apache.org>; "
> dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
> >
> >> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart
> wouldn't work.
> >
> >-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
> >
> >IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> >
> >Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >>From: Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> >>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
> >>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
> >>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
> >>
> >>From Jonathan:
> >>
> >>I was leaning towards either
> >>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
> >>version)
> >>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90
> since
> >>it breaks compatibility
> >>
> >>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
> >>work.
> >>
> >>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com
Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Posted by Jonathan Hsieh <jo...@cloudera.com>.
I was able to get tests HBASE-4552 specific running on 0.90.x with Andrew's
patch to 0.90 with a minor tweak to the HFile instantiation code and with a
backport of HBASE-3316 (allows Pair to be serialized and sent across the
RPC protocol).
Jon.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Here is an example of something that might work:
> http://pastebin.com/t9Bbe1F6
>
> My understanding is if you add methods at the end of an interface
> definition, the interface will remain compatible with a client compiled
> against the earlier version.
>
> This is based on our 0.90-ish internal branch so won't match up quite
> right with 0.90. Unit tests still pass. I haven't checked yet if indeed it
> will work with our client apps that use HRI#bulkLoadHFile.
>
> - Andy
>
> From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <us...@hbase.apache.org>; "
> dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
> >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
> >
> >> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart
> wouldn't work.
> >
> >-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
> >
> >IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> >
> >Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >>From: Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> >>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
> >>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
> >>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
> >>
> >>From Jonathan:
> >>
> >>I was leaning towards either
> >>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
> >>version)
> >>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90
> since
> >>it breaks compatibility
> >>
> >>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
> >>work.
> >>
> >>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com
Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Here is an example of something that might work: http://pastebin.com/t9Bbe1F6
My understanding is if you add methods at the end of an interface definition, the interface will remain compatible with a client compiled against the earlier version.
This is based on our 0.90-ish internal branch so won't match up quite right with 0.90. Unit tests still pass. I haven't checked yet if indeed it will work with our client apps that use HRI#bulkLoadHFile.
- Andy
From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <us...@hbase.apache.org>; "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:34 PM
>Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>
>> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't work.
>
>-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
>
>IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
> - Andy
>
>
>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
>>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>>
>>Hi,
>>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
>>
>>From Jonathan:
>>
>>I was leaning towards either
>>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
>>version)
>>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90 since
>>it breaks compatibility
>>
>>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
>>work.
>>
>>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Here is an example of something that might work: http://pastebin.com/t9Bbe1F6
My understanding is if you add methods at the end of an interface definition, the interface will remain compatible with a client compiled against the earlier version.
This is based on our 0.90-ish internal branch so won't match up quite right with 0.90. Unit tests still pass. I haven't checked yet if indeed it will work with our client apps that use HRI#bulkLoadHFile.
- Andy
From: Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <us...@hbase.apache.org>; "dev@hbase.apache.org" <de...@hbase.apache.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 1:34 PM
>Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>
>> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't work.
>
>-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
>
>IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
> - Andy
>
>
>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
>>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>>
>>Hi,
>>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
>>
>>From Jonathan:
>>
>>I was leaning towards either
>>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
>>version)
>>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90 since
>>it breaks compatibility
>>
>>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
>>work.
>>
>>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't work.
-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>________________________________
>From: Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>
>Hi,
>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
>
>From Jonathan:
>
>I was leaning towards either
>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
>version)
>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90 since
>it breaks compatibility
>
>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
>work.
>
>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
Re: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
> Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't work.
-1 to an approach that has this outcome.
IMO, rolling restart must always be possible on a minor version upgrade.
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
>________________________________
>From: Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
>To: user@hbase.apache.org; dev@hbase.apache.org
>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:57 PM
>Subject: backporting HBASE-4552 to 0.90
>
>Hi,
>HBASE-4552 has been integrated to 0.92 and TRUNK.
>
>From Jonathan:
>
>I was leaning towards either
>1) deprecating and keeping the old methods in it in (keeping old rpc
>version)
>2) having a patch available but in not including in an official 0.90 since
>it breaks compatibility
>
>Basically if we use the approach in HBASE-4552, rolling restart wouldn't
>work.
>
>I want to get your opinion on how it should be backported to 0.90
>
>Thanks
>
>
>