[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9517?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13674683#comment-13674683
]
Karthik Kambatla commented on HADOOP-9517:
------------------------------------------
bq. Classes that subclass a Hadoop class to provide a plugin point MAY need
recompiling on each major version, possibly with the handling of changes to
methods.
If the Hadoop class being extended is Public and the stability is defined by
the annotation, is that not sufficient indication to the user that it might
need to be changed as that interface/class changes. For example, we recently
added a SchedulingPolicy to FairScheduler annotated Public-Evolving: the
policies written for the current version need to be updated as and when the
SchedulingPolicy class changes. Once it becomes stable, we follow the standard
deprecation rules for Public-Stable API that protects the policies. No?
I think it is important to detail how the API compatibility rules impact the
user-level code. May be I am missing something here. Otherwise, we might not
need specific policies for them?
> Document Hadoop Compatibility
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-9517
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9517
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: documentation
> Reporter: Arun C Murthy
> Assignee: Karthik Kambatla
> Attachments: hadoop-9517.patch, hadoop-9517.patch, hadoop-9517.patch,
> hadoop-9517.patch, hadoop-9517-proposal-v1.patch,
> hadoop-9517-proposal-v1.patch
>
>
> As we get ready to call hadoop-2 stable we need to better define 'Hadoop
> Compatibility'.
> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/Compatibility is a start, let's document
> requirements clearly and completely.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
