Hi Vincent, To supplement what Mike said, it's possible some stuff that was deprecated in 1.10 was dropped in 2.0. I don't have a comprehensive list of what that might include, but anything marked as deprecated in 1.10 is subject to removal in 2.0. If I recall, we did try to limit it somewhat. It wouldn't really make sense to create a shim to restore those APIs, though, because that would just reintroduce code we explicitly dropped, which defeats the purpose of a major version bump. In semantic versioning, the entire point of a major version bump is to declare a break in the backwards compatibility of the public API.
If you need the code that was dropped, you probably aren't ready to move to 2.x. 1.10 is an LTM release, so that means we intend to keep patching important bugs until a year after our next LTM (which hasn't yet been released). So, if you need to stay on 1.10, you have plenty of time to update your code to stop using deprecated APIs and avoid non-public APIs. On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:10 AM Mike Miller <mmil...@apache.org> wrote: > > If the library was written using only the public API then it shouldn't be a > problem. See https://accumulo.apache.org/api/ > Accumulo follows SemVer to maintain compatibility of the public API between > versions. There are a lot of changes between 1.10 and 2.0 but anything in > the public API in 1.10 should still exist in 2.0, even if deprecated. > If the library is calling internal methods or extending internal classes, > then that is a different story. If it uses internals then I recommend > refactoring to use the public API if possible. > > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:38 PM Vincent Russell <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I am interested in using an accumulo query and storage library that was > > written against accumulo version 1.10 and I am interested in using it with > > accumulo 2.0. > > > > Is there a shim that exists that would allow the library to be used for > > both versions that could be activated at compile time via a maven profile > > or something? > > > > Thanks, > > Vincent > >
