On 12/6/17 2:06 PM, Christopher wrote:
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:55 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> wrote:
Maybe a difference in interpretation:
I was seeing 1a as being source-compatible still. My assumption was
that
"Deprecate ClientConfiguration" meant that it would remain in the
codebase
-- "replace" as in "replace expected user invocation", not removal of
the
old ClientConfiguration and addition of a new ClientConfig class.
Ok, if we deprecate ClientConfiguration, leave it in 2.0, and drop the
extends from ClientConfiguration in 2.0. Then I am not sure what the
benefit of introducing the new ClientConfig type is?
I read this as leaving the extends in ClientConfiguration and dropping
that
in the new ClientConfig. Agree, I wouldn't see the point in changing the
parent class of ClientConfiguration (as that would break things).
I don't think we can leave ClientConfiguration as deprecated and
extending commons config in Accumulo 2.0. This leaves commons config
1 in the API.
Personally I am not in favor of dropping ClientConfiguration in 2.0,
which is why I was in favor option b.
In the absence of any further input from others, I'll follow along with
whatever you and Josh can agree on. Although I lean towards option 1.a, I
don't feel strongly about either option. We can also do a vote if neither
of you is able (or willing) to convince the other of your preference.
I don't feel strongly enough either way to raise a stink. Color me
surprised that Keith is the one to encourage quick removals from API :)
If he's OK with it, I'm fine with it. I was trying to err on the side of
less breakage.
