On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we change the coprocessor API we should consider a better > naming/semantic. see HBASE-6992 > > I also put a bunch of BS up on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11125 once. It went off the rails toward the end but I do like the idea of having a set of occurrances/events upon which a CP user can register intent to observe success or failure or intercept the operation. > pre/postOperation doesn't do what the user want because the post is not > really post. > our execution in genereal is: > > - pre operation (rpc thread) > - submit operation > - post operation (rpc thread) > - [pre operation (handler thread)] > - [post operation (handler thread)] > > for the user the pre and post should probably be the actual pre/post. > which means pre (rpc thread) and post (handler thread). > > also, today on failure we don't have a post operation. > which means that if someone does something in the pre operation there is no > way to rollback that on failure. > so, we should also add something like a "post operation failure". > > > > Matteo > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I think a major version increment is when we've allowed ourselves > leeway > > to > > > make breaking changes. If we were to do this though I'd like to see us > > roll > > > in as many as we can at once. > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > I suppose I'm opening the flood gates so bring on your CP changes in time > > for 2.0! > > > > > > > > > By the way, we are still sometimes breaking CPs without meaning to. I > > think > > > we messed up the RpcScheduler LimitedPrivate interface in 1.2 with > > > HBASE-15146, which added a return type to RpcScheduler#dispatch, and > > breaks > > > Phoenix. Would you lot be interested in setting up a Jenkins job that > > uses > > > Phoenix to watch for accidental breakage? It's not comprehensive of > > course > > > but might be the closest available thing to it. > > > > > > > > Probably no harm. Phoenix would be the canary. As long as someone looks > at > > it though? It'd be branch-1 job? > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We cool w/ this? > > > > > > > > (I know we keep saying it over and over again that its fine to break > > CPs > > > > w/o deprecation but still uneasy doing the actual breakage.... hence > > the > > > > note here.) > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
