Thanks for the feedback James. I filed HBASE-12787 in response. On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:49 PM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> wrote:
> bq. How many versions of HBase >= 0.98.10 do you think would need to > be binary compatible with 4.2.2? > > Good question. Do you have an opinion? We have a compatibility check > that we do on first connection to a cluster. Perhaps we can add a > check of Phoenix server version vs HBase server version to detect a > "breakage" scenario? In this case, we'd require the server-side > Phoenix version to be bumped up (maybe do this in 4.4?). We can doc it > as well, but it's been my experience that folks just don't read this. > > So perhaps have the reflection in place in HBase long enough for us to > get 4.4 out? > > Thanks for asking! > > James > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Purtell > <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It would be a binary compatibility break unless we detect by reflection > that it's an older factory missing the new 'create' method and therefore > call the old one. > > > > We could add that. > > > > How many versions of HBase >= 0.98.10 do you think would need to be > binary compatible with 4.2.2? > > > > > >> On Dec 30, 2014, at 3:23 PM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Would our 4.2.2 binaries continue to work with releases of HBase > >> containing this change? > >> > >> > >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Thanks Andrew, > >>> > >>> Once HBASE-12028 is committed it should be easy enough to make the > changes > >>> in Phoenix to be able to compile with HBase versions pre or post > >>> HBASE-12028. But we need a PHOENIX issue for that. > >>> > >>> We should also make Abortable a LimitedPrivate it seems. > >>> > >>> Enis > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Purtell < > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Phoenix, > >>>> > >>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12028 > >>>> > >>>> The proposed change if committed into 0.98 branch would introduce a > new > >>>> 'create' method into the RpcSchedulerFactory interface that receives > an > >>>> Abortable as an additional parameter. Thus, the factory can pass this > on to > >>>> schedulers and workers and if something terrible happens in or to a > RPC > >>>> handler they can trigger a server abort. Due to a design oversight we > don't > >>>> otherwise have this capability. In my opinion it is important to fix > this > >>>> oversight. (Phoenix can also potentially make use of the Abortable for > >>>> fatal issues involving indexes.) Otherwise RPC handlers can silently > >>>> terminate upon receiving an unhandled throwable, potentially leaving > behind > >>>> bad state, certainly impacting performance and availability. However > >>>> because RpcSchedulerFactory is an interface any implementor will not > >>>> compile after this change, until updated. > >>>> > >>>> HBase could include this change in the next 0.98 release or not. > Please > >>>> advise. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
