[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13493?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Karthik Kambatla reassigned HADOOP-13493:
-----------------------------------------
Assignee: Daniel Templeton (was: Karthik Kambatla)
[~templedf] - I guess this will be handled by the update to compatibility
guidelines you are working on. Assigning to you. Please close as duplicate if
the patch there already takes care of it.
> Compatibility Docs should clarify the policy for what takes precedence when a
> conflict is found
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-13493
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13493
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: documentation
> Affects Versions: 2.7.2
> Reporter: Robert Kanter
> Assignee: Daniel Templeton
> Priority: Critical
>
> The Compatibility Docs
> (https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.7.1/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/Compatibility.html#Java_API)
> list the policies for Private, Public, not annotated, etc Classes and
> members, but it doesn't say what happens when there's a conflict. We should
> try obviously try to avoid this situation, but it would be good to explicitly
> state what takes precedence.
> As an example, until YARN-3225 made it consistent, {{RefreshNodesRequest}}
> looked like this:
> {code:java}
> @Private
> @Stable
> public abstract class RefreshNodesRequest {
> @Public
> @Stable
> public static RefreshNodesRequest newInstance() {
> RefreshNodesRequest request =
> Records.newRecord(RefreshNodesRequest.class);
> return request;
> }
> }
> {code}
> Note that the class is marked {{\@Private}}, but the method is marked
> {{\@Public}}.
> In this example, I'd say that the class level should have priority.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
