On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 1:34 PM Andrew Hulbert <andrew.hulb...@ccri.com> wrote: > > Matt, > > We are running into similar issues with the 2.2 VFS jar running on > Accumulo 1.9.2 after upgrading from 1.8.1 but have been restarting > tservers to work around it and other issues with putting the iterators > in /tmp on certain systems. > > In general though we love it because we can run multiple versions of > iterators on the same cluster and we have it deployed on several systems > with our clients for that specific use case. > > Sean/Chris, if we rip it out would you imagine iterators being more like > HBase where you are basically bound to the startup classpath as the > baseline mechanism (with user-enabled specific class loaders). Or do you > imagine another upgrade/configuration mechanism? FYI we do VFS and the > general accumulo mechanism for configuring iterators and the iterator > api design because its pretty user/developer friendly. >
My suggestion wasn't really about loss of functionality. Rather, the way I envision it, it is about supporting that same functionality with a modular design that is more maintainable, flexible, uses standard configuration mechanisms, and is properly segregated from the core code base. Even after "ripping out" our custom class loading from Accumulo's core code base, you could still do what you're doing today... it just might have to be configured more explicitly when you deploy your Accumulo cluster. And, the class loader code itself may be developed and maintained as a separate library from Accumulo itself. Accumulo wouldn't be tightly bound to that specific class loader implementation, and that specific implementation wouldn't be tightly bound to Accumulo. Regardless of changes to the startup class loading, we also have the per-table contexts in Accumulo, which allow separate class paths for each table, which we'd still support in some way (though perhaps in future, it could be implemented a bit better and configuring it would be more explicit). > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > On 10/24/2018 10:55 PM, Christopher wrote: > > The idea that Dave is talking about is that I don't think we should be > > doing any classloader special sauce in accumulo-start at all, and we > > might even be able to remove accumulo-start as a module entirely, > > since this is its primary (sole?) purpose. > > > > It's just a rough idea that I've tossed around with a few people, but > > haven't really spent any time materializing it into a proposal, PR, or > > experiment. Basically, I think we should rip out all classloader > > special sauce. If a user still wishes to use a custom classloader for > > any reason, using vfs2 or anything else, they can set a system class > > loader with -Djava.system.class.loader=my.custom.CustomClassLoader > > when they run java. This is an advanced Java option supported by Java > > itself, and really shouldn't be a problem to punt this downstream. > > Classloading is way outside the scope of what Accumulo does anyway, > > and Accumulo should have its complexity centered around what it does, > > and not "bells and whistles" on top of basic Java language functions. > > > > If we wanted to, we could use our current classloading code to create > > a classloader which could be used this way... and maybe provide it as > > an example or explain it in a blog post. But, Accumulo shouldn't be > > doing special sauce class loading... there are other projects that are > > better suited to specializing that for any Java application... and > > there's no reason we need it so tightly coupled to Accumulo. > > > > Of course, there's still some utility in the per-table context > > classloaders for pluggable components like iterators... and there's > > probably room for improvement in the configuration of those... but the > > main startup classloading is probably best to rip out. > > > > I'm not sure if it should be done for 2.0 or not... maybe yes. I'd be > > willing to rip it out... I enjoy ripping things out and reducing code > > complexity. But, I don't really have a desire to do the work of > > implementing or blogging about alternatives, if that's even necessary. > > I'd hope that somebody else would do that, if they felt it was really > > necessary once the built-in stuff was ripped out. For me, I'd be happy > > mentioning the feature in the release notes, maybe linking to the docs > > on the feature, and leaving implementation as an exercise for > > downstream, with an open invitation for a guest blog on our website > > about how it could be done. > > > > I've been thinking we're probably going to want a second alpha... or a > > beta, before 2.0 final... and if we did this for 2.0, I'd definitely > > want another pre-release release first. > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:10 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have talked with Christopher about the VFS class loader in general and I > >> think he has a good approach. He can elaborate further if needed, but the > >> approach is to move it out of the core project and allow users to configure > >> it at runtime using the java.system.class.loader system property. There are > >> organizations using the VFSClassloader successfully, maybe it just needs to > >> be reimplemented. > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:58 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> sounds like a good DISCUSS thread for 2.0? > >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:43 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> It seems like commons-vfs2 is just a pile of crap. > >>>> > >>>> It's been known to have bugs for years and we've seen zero progress from > >>>> them on making them better. > >>>> > >>>> IMO, rip the whole damn thing out. > >>>> > >>>> On 10/24/18 12:42 PM, Matthew Peterson wrote: > >>>>> Hello Accumulo, > >>>>> > >>>>> Summary: commons-vfs2 version 2.2 seems to have problems and it may be > >>>>> worth rolling back to version 2.1 of commons-vfs2. > >>>>> > >>>>> My project upgraded a system from Accumulo 1.8.1 to 1.9.2. Immediately > >>>>> after switching vfs contexts we saw problems. The tservers would > >>> error in > >>>>> iterators about missing classes that were clearly on the classpath. > >>> The > >>>>> problems were persistent until we replaced the commons-vfs2.jar with > >>>>> version 2.1 (Accumulo 1.9.2 uses version 2.2). Until we rolled vfs > >>> back, > >>>>> we received errors particularly with Spring code trying to access > >>> various > >>>>> classes and files within the jars. It looks like in 2.2, commons-vfs > >>>>> implemented a doDetach method which closed the zip files. We suspect > >>> that > >>>>> code is the problem but haven't tested that theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> I suspect that most users don't use this feature. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks! > >>>>> Matt > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> busbey > >>> >
