Yes. They are 100% forward/backwards compatible on the wire. However, it is my understanding that there were some minor additions (new API) to 0.9.1 which won't work in 0.9.0... but that won't affect us since we are not using those features (and wouldn't be adding anything that leverages those features in any bugfixes on 1.6.x), and because we provide the jar.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we know if thirft 0.9.0 and 0.9.1 are forward compatible? > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Correction: the current patch does *NOT* bump the wire version... I >> thought I did that, but I did not. >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Devs, >> > >> > I'm considering whether or not it'd be appropriate to push in >> > ACCUMULO-1691 into the 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch. >> > This would effectively bump our dependency on libthrift to 0.9.1. >> > However, thrift 0.9.1 and 0.9.0 are 100% wire-compatible (I've been >> > assured by jfarrell and codesf in the #thrift IRC channel). >> > >> > Given that this we provide this dependency, and the bump would fix >> > some thrift bugs, and that Thrift's own API is backwards-compatible in >> > this version, I don't think this would impact our community except in >> > the positive. >> > >> > (Note: currently, my patch for ACCUMULO-1691 bumps up the wire >> > version, but I plan on changing that so it doesn't, now that I've been >> > assured it is compatible... I've also done some manual tests to verify >> > this, and haven't seen any issues across our tests, even without >> > re-generating the thrift classes in ACCUMULO-2773; If I roll >> > ACCUMULO-1691 in, I'd also include ACCUMULO-2773.) >> > >> > -- >> > Christopher L Tubbs II >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> > > > > -- > Sean
