What you are trying to do sounds interesting. It also sounds experimental and in the early stages. Is there anything specific you think should be done for 1.6.0 w/ regards to MAC API?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/26/14, 11:13 AM, Keith Turner wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 3/26/14, 10:57 AM, Keith Turner wrote: >>> >>> Can you give an example of what you are thinking of? I don't understand >>>> you >>>> viewpoint either >>>> >>>> >>> Sure. One limitation of MAC, in general as a testing harness, is that it >>> doesn't adequately exercise multi-node implementations. You can run >>> multiple tservers, but they are all on the same host which limits the >>> validity of a "robust" test. This is my immediate goal. >>> >>> Multi-node deployments are capable using something like Mesos or Yarn. >>> Given that there is already functioning support to deploy Accumulo on >>> Yarn, >>> this was my goal. >>> >>> My goal is to be able to have the ability to run all of our AbstractMacIT >>> implementations against "real" hardware without changing a single line of >>> test code (ok - maybe a line or two to do injection of the MAC >>> implementation). The point is, I believe there could be a huge testing >>> gain >>> from being able to write tests which leverage yarn, have the same >>> programmatic configuration API from MAC, and provide near "real" Accumulo >>> semantics. >>> >>> >> Ok so you want to MAC to be an interface so that you can provide a >> completely different implementation? >> >> > Correct. Some things would serve well in a common abstract base (e.g. > numTservers, siteXml configuration), but all the nonsense about creating > directory structures and managing Processes is implementation specific. > > Perhaps I could create a new interface that the current implementation > implements which still provides the same semantics from 1.4 and 1.5. Let me > see if I can mock up what I'm thinking -- that will probably be easier than > me trying to write it out. >
