On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Adam Fuchs <afu...@apache.org> wrote:
> So, I think we can make a general argument to set policy, and when removing > a specific method we should make a specific argument. Personally, I would > set the bar at identifying the specific harm cause by the retention of the > method, as well as polling the community and considering objections. > > Christopher, you made an argument about people misunderstanding the > semantics of the method and using it incorrectly. Is that not solved by > just deprecating the method? > > Clearly no, since mistakes are still occurring in 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT and it was deprecated in 1.6.0. Further, it was hard to notice because: 1) it's the only way to currently get that information from the API to the RPC layer (see ACCUMULO-3199) (In my proposed commit[1], I offer a temporary workaround which involves better naming, and limits the API to the ZooKeeperInstance only) 2) the use of the method occurred in a somewhat badly named utility method which suppressed deprecation warnings Until ACCUMULO-3199 is fixed to address the shortcoming of being able to get the user-provided client RPC config to the RPC layer, this method is going to be prone to abuse. [1] https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/commit/52806b6?diff=split -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
