IMO ideal would be to somehow duplicate the codepaths - is it completely impossible to do so? Or could we hack in a flag like hbase.connpool.by.identity=true -- default to the broken way, and let users switch to the "new" codepath by toggling the boolean?
Sorry I don't have enough context on the patch to know if the above is crazy-talk. -Todd On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> If anyone running 0.90 relies on the current behavior to >> enforce separate connections (for whatever reason), using separate >> Configuration instances, this would break that behavior and appear as a >> regression right? > > Does anyone do this? We could query user@ before considering commit. > >> I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in >> trying it. > > Another option to consider is putting it into a branch that Ted could > maintain, if he's agreeable to that and someone is going to -1 putting this > into 0.90. > > - Andy > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Gary Helmling <ghelml...@gmail.com> >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:06 PM >> Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90 >> >> Changing the connection identity behavior in the middle of a release series >> seems like a bad idea. >> >> The 0.20 releases did connection identity based on Configuration contents, >> 0.90 changed this to Configuration instance identity, then 0.90.5 would be >> going back to contents again (acknowledged with a smarter subset and guards >> against changes)? If anyone running 0.90 relies on the current behavior to >> enforce separate connections (for whatever reason), using separate >> Configuration instances, this would break that behavior and appear as a >> regression right? >> >> Changing these underlying assumptions in a minor release doesn't seem >> right. I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in >> trying it. But I'd need some convincing that the current 0.90 behavior is >> completely broken rather than sub-optimal to agree to include it. >> >> --gh >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> One reason for my endorsement is that it would take 0.92 quite some time to >>> reach the level of stability of 0.90.4 >>> I really think HBASE-3777 would benefit HBase users a lot, and reducing >>> potential future inquiry about connection-related issues. >>> >>> Of course, backporting increases the amount of work for validation of >>> 0.90.5 >>> But I think it is worth it. >>> >>> My two cents. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org >>> >wrote: >>> >>> > I'm -0 at the moment, it's a big patch to include in a point >> release. >>> > >>> > I'm glad the work was done tho because it means those interested >> (like >>> > me) can directly patch it in and test it (at my own risk). >>> > >>> > J-D >>> > >>> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> > > Hi, >>> > > Bright Fulton has volunteered to backport HBASE-3777 to 0.90 >>> > > I endorse his effort. >>> > > >>> > > If you have comment(s), please share. >>> > > >>> > > I will open a new JIRA for this effort if this motion passes. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks >>> > > >>> > >>> >> > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
