On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2013 10:06 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > There's no ticket yet. Jared Winick, the creator of the utility to test > the > > close() based solution, mentioned in chat that he could do it this week. > > I'll circle back with him and get a ticket made so that either he or I > can > > get it done. > > > > Oh, that's different than what I thought was being talked about. I thought > be "utility", it referred to a not-yet-written class for Accumulo which > forcefully terminates the zoo* and thrift resources beneath Instance that > may otherwise leak when a close is not called. > > Utility as you use it makes me think you're just referring to testing the > code in a container to make sure it actually works. > > Correct, that is the utility previously discussed, which is what I presume Bill was talking about. > > > > I assume this is going to block 1.6.0/1.5.1. > > > > > > > > > > Only if we decide it should :). It's one of those things that has > likely > > > bit people for quite some time. It's up to us to decide if it's severe > > > enough that we should try to get it fixed before making another > release. > > > > > > > > > Actually, this should block 1.6.0, 1.5.1, and 1.4.5 since once published > > we'll be stuck with the API change. > > By that argument, the change shouldn't even be in 1.4 or 1.5. But... > > We've already discussed the API impact of this to death. The consensus each time eventually comes to the conclusion that there always should have been a way to clean up, the lack of it is a bug, and the impact is severe enough that we need to break forward compatibility. (a side effect of of the discussion is usually that our versioning numbers are broken.) -- Sean
