>> default to the broken way LOL On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 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 >
