That was my gut reaction too.
Separating "public API" by artifact would be my preferred way to tackle
it moving forward. Until then, trying to maintain our current approach
seems reasonable to me. If there's some reason with how we have things
structured now which makes this infeasible/difficult, let's by all means
explore options (I didn't even realize that Yetus had their own audience
annotations).
Christopher wrote:
That's a good idea, at least for now, until we have a proper API jar at
some hypothetical future point. But, I'd be concerned about adding a
dependency for users on previous versions (1.6, 1.7) since it has a runtime
retention.
We could also make our own annotation, but it'd be nice to take advantage
of an existing javadoc doclet to do the filtering, like the one Yetus
provides.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:49 PM Sean Busbey<[email protected]> wrote:
We could switch from a list of packages to annotations using the Apache
Yetus Audience Annotations.
http://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.2.0/#yetus-audience-annotations
That would allow us to mark specific classes, and even carve out particular
methods should we choose.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Christopher<[email protected]> wrote:
We do have the opportunity to move to a new improved API, if somebody
were
to put time into it. I guess that's true whether we put this in the
public
API officially or not. I think maybe the hardest part is that we don't
really want to put just the interface in the API... but it exists in a
package with a bunch of other classes which probably shouldn't be public
API. So, some thought needs to be put into *how* we're going to do it,
too.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM William Slacum<[email protected]>
wrote:
It should be public API. It's one of the core reasons for choosing
Accumulo
over a similar project like HBase or Cassandra. Allegedly, Jeff "Mean
Gene"
Dean said we got the concept correct as well :)
Personally I hate the current API from a usability standpoint (ie, the
generic types are useless and already encoded in the name, it
needlessly
diverges from the standard java Iterator calling standards), but it's a
strong, identifying feature we have.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Christopher<[email protected]>
wrote:
Accumulators,
What are the pros and cons that you can see for moving the
SortedKeyValueIterator into the public API?
Right now, I think there's still some need for improvement in the
Iterator
API, and many of the iterators may not be stable enough to really
recommend
people use without some serious caveats (because we may not be able
to
keep
their API stable very easily). So, there's a con.
In the pros side, iterators are a core feature of Accumulo, and
nearly
all
of Accumulo's distributed processing capabilities are dependent upon
them.
It is reasonable to expect users to take advantage of them, and we've
at
least tried to be cautious about changing the iterators in
incompatible
ways, even if they aren't in the public API.
Recently, this came up when we stripped out all the non-public API
javadocs
from the website. (reported by Dan Blum on the user list on March
4th:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-user/201603.mbox/%3C066a01d17658%24bc9dc1b0%2435d94510%24%40bbn.com%3E
)
What would it take for us to feel comfortable moving them to the
public
API? Do we need a better interface first, or should we isolate the
other
iterators into another package (some of that has already been done),
or
should we wait for a proper public API package (2.0?) to provide this
interface in?
--
busbey
