I already +1'd modularizing post branching of 0.92.0. When do we branch 0.92? We have a bunch of blockers and criticals filed against it still. Maybe we all can review and move stuff out that we don't think so critical or that much of a blocker?
Good stuff, St.Ack On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > From IRC: > > apurtell i propose we take the build modular as early as possible to > deal with multiple platform targets > apurtell secure vs nonsecure > apurtell 0.20 vs 0.22 vs trunk > apurtell i understand the maintenence issues with multiple rpc > engines, for example, but a lot of reflection twistiness is going to be worse > apurtell i propose we take up esammer on his offer > apurtell so branch 0.92 asap, get trunk modular and working against > multiple platform targets > apurtell especially if we're going to see rpc changes coming from > downstream projects... > apurtell also what about supporting secure and nonsecure clients with > the same deployment? > apurtell zookeeper does this > apurtell so that is selectable rpc engine per connection, with a > negotiation > apurtell we don't have or want to be crazy about it but a rolling > upgrade should be possible if for example we are taking in a new rpc from fb > (?) or cloudera (avro based?) > apurtell also looks like hlog modules for 0.20 vs 0.22 and successors > apurtell i think over time we can roadmap the rpc engines, if we have > multiple, by deprecation > apurtell now that we're on the edge of supporting both 0.20 and 0.22, > and secure vs nonsecure, let's get it as manageable as possible right away > > St^Ack_ apurtell: +1 > > apurtell also i think there is some interest in async rpc engine > > St^Ack_ we should stick this up on dev i'd say > > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via > Tom White) >
