But... without more time to fully develop the requirements for the interface, with a few implementations, it's probably going to change anyway. I think even adding the interface could complicate the follow-on work. But... *shrug*.... maybe you can have guarantees that the interface will stay as is (same package, same methods, same name, etc.)?
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Not even the addition of a new interface, Christopher? I'd very much like > to have an interface that we can get in 1.6.0 at a minimum. I wouldn't even > push for any deprecation of what's currently in place. > On Mar 28, 2014 10:02 AM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think any of this should be done for 1.6.0, but I like the >> idea of creating a separate cluster interface for testing. I think it >> should be integrated into the accumulo-maven-plugin, also. I think the >> idea should be hammered out, and tested as a separate thing, to >> experiment with the options, and provided as a complete feature for >> the next major release. If it would change packaging dependencies, it >> shouldn't even be done for 1.6.x bugfix releases. >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Oh, I like that idea, Bill & Sean. >> > >> > Package: org.apache.accumulo.cluster >> > Public API: org.apache.accumulo.cluster.AccumuloCluster >> > MAC: org.apache.accumulo.cluster.mini.MiniAccumuloCluster (implements >> > AccumuloCluster, allows for backwards compat) >> > Yarn: org.apache.accumulo.cluster.yarn >> > Docker: ... >> > Mesos: ... >> > >> > etc etc etc. >> > >> > One question in my mind, do we keep the maven module >> 'accumulo-minicluster'? >> > I would imagine that if we struck the 'mini' portion from 1.6 that would >> > create some confusion. Would it be worth the indirection to rename >> > accumulo-minicluster to accumulo-cluster and then create a new >> > accumulo-minicluster module that depends on accumulo-minicluster (but >> > contains no code itself) to preserve the 1.4 and 1.5 poms to generally >> work >> > with a version bump? I'm not sure if Maven would be happy with that or do >> > what I think it "should". >> > >> > >> > On 3/28/14, 6:26 AM, Bill Havanki wrote: >> >> >> >> I've been watching the conversation on the side, but I wanted to mention >> >> that it seems the focus isn't so much on "mini" clusters anymore. You're >> >> thinking of programmatic cluster management, whether one node or many. >> The >> >> idea of a basic cluster management interface, with MAC as an >> >> implementation, is promising. A package name of just "cluster" could >> work. >> >> >> >> Carry on :) >> >> >> >> Bill H >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Sean Busbey >> >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >>> If you decide to go the mapred/mapreduce way, you could go with the >> >>> package >> >>> name "mini". >> >>> >> >>> alternatively, we can do a multi-stage change out >> >>> >> >>> 1) 1.6.x: introduce TestAccumuloCluster interface, @deprecate >> >>> MiniAccumuloCluster class and make it implement TestAccumuloCluster >> >>> >> >>> 2) 1.6 + major: change MiniAccumuloCluster to an interface that extends >> >>> TestAccumuloCluster, @deprecate TestAccumuloCluster >> >>> >> >>> 3) 1.6 + 2 major: remove TestAccumuloCluster >> >>> >> >>> Or just go with TestAccumuloCluster as the interface, have >> >>> MiniAccumuloCluster as the local pseudo distributed implementation, and >> >>> then call your new one something like YarnAccumuloCluster. >> >>> >> >>> In that case we could use the deprecation cycle to move the MAC class >> out >> >>> of the public api. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Thoughts on if this would be an acceptable change for 1.6.0 to >> alleviate >> >>>> future cruft? >> >>>> >> >>>> Suggestions on the new package and/or class name would be greatly >> >>>> appreciated over "NewMiniAccumuloC*". >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 3/26/14, 3:37 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Those who are interested: check out >> >>>>> https://github.com/joshelser/accumulo/commit/ >> >>>>> 9f63cf32559ab514a69ff2c6b02acef9c9cbb4e8 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> tl;dr I could create some real interfaces for the cluster and config, >> >>>>> which are "hidden" under the covers by the 1.4 and 1.5 >> >>>>> MiniAccumuloCluster and MiniAccumuloConfig classes. This de-couples >> the >> >>>>> default implementation, gives us the ability to hide "implementation >> >>>>> details" if wanted, and moves us towards some factory methods instead >> >>>>> of >> >>>>> calling a class directly. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thoughts? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 3/26/14, 1:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Yes, very much experimental at this point. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> What I'm most concerned about is having reasonable hooks up front, >> not >> >>>>>> trying to make an implementation for inclusion 1.6.0. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Regarding additions, the implementations already contains most >> things >> >>>>>> I >> >>>>>> would want to expose. I haven't come up with anything that would be >> >>>>>> generally returned through the "API" rather than through this >> proposed >> >>>>>> implementation (e.g. YARN connection information) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On 3/26/14, 11:57 AM, Keith Turner wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>
