I still have one outstanding comment, but this is a comment for several of the CEPs being worked on
> And last comment, which I have also done in the other modularity thread… > backwards compatibility and maintenance. It is not clear right now what java > interfaces may not break and how we can maintain and extend such interfaces > in the future. If the goal is to allow 3rd parties to plugin and offer new > SSTable formats, are we as a project ok with having a minor release do a > binary or source non-compatible change? If not how do we detect this? Until > this problem is solved, I do not think we should add any such interfaces. I would love some clarity on this. Specifically, if we assume a patch author/reviewers are not familiar with the impact of changes these interfaces, what happens? Do we have tools to block this? Do we require 3rd party authors to create massive shims to deal with every patch level version out there? I would love more clarity on how we maintain these new pluggable interfaces. > On Nov 9, 2021, at 4:45 AM, Branimir Lambov <blam...@apache.org> wrote: > > Does anyone have any further comments or questions on the proposal, or are > we ready to move forward to a vote? > > Regards, > Branimir > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:15 PM David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com.invalid> > wrote: > >>> I apologize I did not mention those things explicitly. All the places >> where >>> sstable files are accessed directly would have to be refactored. >> >> Works for me >> >>> Speaking about the implementation, one idea I was thinking about was that >>> the factories for formats are registered using Java's native service >>> loader. >> >> I am a fan of ServiceLoader as a means of plugging in. >> >>> I hope this explains a bit >> >> Yep; thanks! >> >>> On Nov 2, 2021, at 1:46 AM, Jacek Lewandowski < >> lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> David, >>> >>> I apologize I did not mention those things explicitly. All the places >> where >>> sstable files are accessed directly would have to be refactored. >>> >>> Regarding TableMetrics - currently it includes many metrics, some of them >>> are unrelated to sstables at all, but there are metrics which are >> specific >>> to the current sstable format, like metrics related to index summaries or >>> bloom filters. The created gauges query certain methods on sstable >> reader - >>> I think the only common metrics for sstables we can leave in TableMetrics >>> are those for which there are query methods in generic sstable interface. >>> Other metrics, specific to the certain sstable format should be >> registered >>> by the implementation itself. >>> >>> Speaking about the implementation, one idea I was thinking about was that >>> the factories for formats are registered using Java's native service >>> loader. This way we could get the list of all the factories on the >>> classpath and call some method, like `registerMetrics` during system >>> initialization. That could be also implemented in static initializer in >> the >>> factory but it would make it less obvious for the implementors where such >>> initialization should be done. >>> >>> I hope this explains a bit >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jacek >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
