[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17730) Migration to 2.0 for coprocessors

["stack (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17730?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16175043#comment-16175043 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-17730:
-------------------------------

Yes is answer to your question above [~anoop.hbase] -- smile.

I have list of incompatibilities for coprocessors running here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9iEu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#heading=h.9k7mjbauv0wj but this issue is about more than just list of breakage; it is about adding section to 2.0 migration on how to move coprocessors over.

> Migration to 2.0 for coprocessors 
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17730
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17730
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: documentation, migration
>            Reporter: Appy
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> Jiras breaking coprocessor compatibility should be marked with component ' Coprocessor', and label 'incompatible'.
> Close to releasing 2.0, we should go through all such jiras and write down steps for migrating coprocessor easily.
> The idea is, it might be very hard to fix coprocessor breakages by reverse engineering errors,  but will be easier we suggest easiest way to fix breakages resulting from each individual incompatible change.
> For eg. HBASE-17312 is incompatible change. It'll result in 100s of errors because BaseXXXObserver classes are gone and will probably result in a lot of confusion, but if we explicitly mention the fix which is just one line change - replace "Foo extends BaseXXXObserver" with "Foo implements XXXObserver" - it makes it very easy.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)