On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:40 PM, 张铎 <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, this means we will still use pb2.5 for hbase-protocol? And > hbase-protocol-shaded is maintained manually? I still think the precommit > job should have the ability to check the hbase-protocol-shaded... > > Yes. For now. Let me test some more. I think moving all protos to be pb3.1 will work but will do that after this patch lands (with its pb3.1 for internal use and pb2.5 for CPEPs, REST, etc.). All on pb3.1 would make for a cleaner story. > I skimmed the branch, the proto files are placed both in hbase-protocol and > hbase-protocol-shaded? Yes. A subset are duplicated. I expended some effort minimizing the set but our proto files are way to granular. Files like Client.proto and HBase.proto are way too big with too many concerns all collected together inside them. It makes it tough drawing the line between internal proto use and CPEP protos. In the absence, we have a larger overlap between protos used internally and those exposed for CPEP use. Going forward, I'll add to the doc that many small files is better than a few big ones. > The one in hbase-protocol is only used to support > coprocessor? How can we sync them? Also manually? Or they do not need to be > synced? > > It'd be tough syncing. They are not exactly the same file given the build into different locations. It is not the end-of-the world if they aren't sync'd; the CPEP will keep working. Better is that we abandon hbase-protocol and start up a new module with published protos that we will honor with the annotation public. This project has revealed a bunch of API surface previously was underground. Let me file some issues. Thanks Duo, St.Ack > Thanks. > > 2016-10-04 2:09 GMT+08:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The precommit job uses compile-protobuf profile for verification. The > > > absence of compile-protobuf profile in hbase-protocol-shaded module > means > > > precommit job would only invoke the existing compile-protobuf profile > > > in hbase-protocol > > > module. > > > > > w.r.t. path, when two protoc executables (corresponding to 2.5 and 3.x, > > > respectively) are available, would maven know which one to pick for > > > the hbase-protocol and hbase-protocol-shaded modules ? > > > > > > > > > > For the former, right, nothing changed. > > > > > On the latter, it is a contrivance, a problem we do not have. The build > > doesn't have to pick between pb 2.5 vs pb 3.1. We don't run protoc as > part > > of our build. It is done apart from the build by the developer and their > > results are then checked-in. That continues as it was post-patch. We just > > do 3.1 now instead of 2.5. > > > > I'll check in a bit of doc as part of this commit that hopefully will > help > > make this all clearer. > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Looks like compile-protobuf profile is not in > > > > hbase-protocol-shaded/pom.xml > > > > > (in HBASE-16264 branch) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I don't get what you are saying here > > > > > > > > (The target in the new module is generate-sources. See the included > > > README. > > > > This step does more work now more than just generating protocs, hence > > new > > > > profile name.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems precommit jobs should pass with the current formation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you stating that this patch is likely to build? (Yes, the patch I > > > > submitted builds). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the future, if we add another profile for compiling proto3 > files, > > we > > > > > need to specify the path to proto3 compiler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what you are asking. Why do we have to specify 'paths'? > We > > > > don't have to currently (See the plugin we use generating protos now > > from > > > > hadoop). Maybe you are trying to distinguish the production of > > > protobuf2.5 > > > > vs 3.1 protos but these are isolated by module.... > > > > > > > > > > > > I said I'd commit this morning but let me wait a while. There may be > > some > > > > more questions/objections and I'd like to have a clean build up on > > > jenkins > > > > here [1] before I commit (jenkins is being ornery). > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > 1. > > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-16264/jdk=JDK%201.8%20( > > > > latest),label=yahoo-not-h2/28/console > > > > > > > > Service Unavailable > > > > > > > > The server is temporarily unable to service your > > > > request due to maintenance downtime or capacity > > > > problems. Please try again later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The protoc generated files (such as MasterProtos) are checked > into > > > > source > > > > > > repo, right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we need proto3 on the precommit image(s) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:18 AM, 张铎 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Then I think we need to file an issue to change the protoc > version > > > > > >> installed in the precommit docker file to 3.x before the merge. > > > > > Otherwise > > > > > >> the precommit build for protoc check maybe broken after the > > merge... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2016-10-03 1:18 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell < > > [email protected] > > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I have 2.5 and 3.0 installed as /opt/protobuf-<version>, and > > have > > > > bash > > > > > >> > scripts that add the appropriate version's bin directory to > the > > > > path. > > > > > >> Not > > > > > >> > particularly onerous as I also have to switch between required > > JDK > > > > > >> > versions, so the scripts also set JAVA_HOME at and add JDK bin > > to > > > > the > > > > > >> path > > > > > >> > for the required JDK for the build. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Unlike with the scala compiler, which is after all JVM > bytecode > > > at a > > > > > >> > fundamental level, I don't think maven automation for > automatic > > > > > download > > > > > >> > and execution is possible. protoc is a native binary. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:30 PM, 张铎 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Do we need to install protoc 3.0 manully before building > HBase > > > or > > > > > the > > > > > >> > maven > > > > > >> > > protobuf plugin will automatically download the protoc > > compiler? > > > > > >> Maybe we > > > > > >> > > need to install protoc 3.0 in the precommit docker file. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 2016-10-02 14:20 GMT+08:00 张铎 <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> 2016-10-02 0:50 GMT+08:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 7:20 AM, 张铎 < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>>> Can we setup a compatibility checker job in jenkins? > Start > > a > > > > > >> > >>> minicluster in > > > > > >> > >>>> one process, and use a client in another process to > > > communicate > > > > > >> with > > > > > >> > it. > > > > > >> > >>>> The version of the client should be >= 0.98 and <= the > > > version > > > > of > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > >>>> minicluster. Of course we need to design the testing code > > > > > >> carefully to > > > > > >> > >>> make > > > > > >> > >>>> sure that we have tested all the cases. > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>> +1. We need this up and running before we put out an > > > > hbase-2.0.0. > > > > > I > > > > > >> > know > > > > > >> > >>> Matteo does this test manually on a regular basis but a > > > > > >> formalization > > > > > >> > >>> would > > > > > >> > >>> help. I can add an exercise of Coprocessor Endpoints. I > > > believe > > > > > this > > > > > >> > is on > > > > > >> > >>> Dima's list of TODOs but will let him speak for himself. > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>>> And also I think we should make sure that no proto3 only > > > > feature > > > > > is > > > > > >> > >>>> introduced in our proto files until branch-1 is dead. > > Maybe a > > > > > >> > precommit > > > > > >> > >>>> check? > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>> I think you mean wire-format breaking changes? Agree. We > > have > > > > our > > > > > >> PB3 > > > > > >> > set > > > > > >> > >>> to 2.5 compat mode and yes, we can't move on from this > until > > > we > > > > > are > > > > > >> in > > > > > >> > a > > > > > >> > >>> place where we can say no to 2.5 clients. > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >> Yes, for example, pb2.5 does not support map so we should > not > > > use > > > > > >> map in > > > > > >> > >> our proto files. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> Making use of PB3isms cannot be avoided. PB3.1 adds a > native > > > > > >> > replacement > > > > > >> > >>> for our HBaseZeroCopyByteString/ByteStringer hack. It > also > > > adds > > > > > >> > 'unsafe' > > > > > >> > >>> methods that we need to exploit if we are to keep our > > > read/write > > > > > >> paths > > > > > >> > >>> offheap. > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> St.Ack > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>>> Thanks. > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>>> 2016-10-01 11:55 GMT+08:00 Sean Busbey < > > [email protected] > > > >: > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>> have we experimentally confirmed that wire compatibility > > is > > > > > >> > >>>>> maintained? I saw one mention of expecting wire > > > compatibility > > > > to > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > >>>>> fine, but nothing with someone using e.g. the > clusterdock > > > work > > > > > or > > > > > >> > >>>>> something to mix servers / clients or do replication. > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Stack < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I intend to do a mass commit late this weekend that > moves > > > us > > > > on > > > > > >> to a > > > > > >> > >>>>> shaded > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protobuf-3.1.0, either Sunday night or Monday morning. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> If objection, please speak up or if need more time for > > > > > >> > >>>>>> consideration/review, just shout. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I want to merge the branch HBASE-16264 into master (it > is > > > > > running > > > > > >> > >>> here > > > > > >> > >>>> up > > > > > >> > >>>>>> on jenkins https://builds.apache.org/view > > > > > >> /H-L/view/HBase/job/HBASE- > > > > > >> > >>>>> 16264/). > > > > > >> > >>>>>> The branch at HBASE-16264 has three significant > > > > bodies-of-work > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > >>>>>> unfortunately are tangled and can only go in of a > piece. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16264 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16264 > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >>> The > > > > > >> > >>>>>> shading of our protobuf usage so we can upgrade and/or > > run > > > > > with a > > > > > >> > >>>> patched > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protobuf WITHOUT breaking REST, Spark, and in > particular, > > > > > >> > >>> Coprocessor > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Endpoints. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16567 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16567 > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >>> A > > > > > >> > >>>>> move > > > > > >> > >>>>>> up on to (shaded) protobuf-3.1.0 > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16741 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16741 > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >>> An > > > > > >> > >>>>>> amendment of our generate protobufs step to include > > shading > > > > > and a > > > > > >> > >>>>> bundling > > > > > >> > >>>>>> of protobuf src (with a means of calling a patch srcs > > hook) > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Together we're talking about 40MB of change mostly made > > of > > > > the > > > > > >> > >>> movement > > > > > >> > >>>>> of > > > > > >> > >>>>>> generated files or the application of a pattern that > > alters > > > > > >> where we > > > > > >> > >>>> get > > > > > >> > >>>>>> imports from. When done, you should notice no > difference > > > and > > > > > >> should > > > > > >> > >>> be > > > > > >> > >>>>> able > > > > > >> > >>>>>> to go about your business as per usual. Upside is that > we > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > >> > >>> able > > > > > >> > >>>> to > > > > > >> > >>>>>> avoid coming onheap doing protobuf > > > marshalling/unmarshalling > > > > as > > > > > >> > >>>> protobuf > > > > > >> > >>>>>> 2.5.0 requires. Downside is that we repeat a good > portion > > > of > > > > > our > > > > > >> > >>>> internal > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protos, once non-shaded so Coprocessor Endpoints can > keep > > > > > working > > > > > >> > >>> and > > > > > >> > >>>>> then > > > > > >> > >>>>>> again as shaded for internal use. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I provide some more overview below on the changes. See > > the > > > > > >> shading > > > > > >> > >>> doc > > > > > >> > >>>>>> here: > > > > > >> > >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > > > 1H4NgLXQ9Y9KejwobddCqaVME > > > > > >> DCGby > > > > > >> > >>>>> DcXtdF5iAfDIEk/edit# > > > > > >> > >>>>>> for more detail (Patches are up on review board -- > except > > > the > > > > > >> latest > > > > > >> > >>>>>> HBASE-16264 which is too big for JIRA and RB). I am > > > currently > > > > > >> > >>> working > > > > > >> > >>>> on > > > > > >> > >>>>> a > > > > > >> > >>>>>> devs chapter for the book on protobuf going forward > that > > > will > > > > > go > > > > > >> in > > > > > >> > >>> as > > > > > >> > >>>>> part > > > > > >> > >>>>>> of this patch. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >> > >>>>>> St.Ack > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Items of note: > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * Two new modules; one named hbase-protocol-shaded that > > is > > > > used > > > > > >> by > > > > > >> > >>>> hbase > > > > > >> > >>>>>> core. It has in it a shaded (and later patched) > protobuf. > > > The > > > > > >> other > > > > > >> > >>> new > > > > > >> > >>>>>> module is hbase-endpoint which goes after hbase-server > > and > > > > has > > > > > >> those > > > > > >> > >>>>>> bundled endpoints that I was able to break out of core > > > (there > > > > > >> are a > > > > > >> > >>> few > > > > > >> > >>>>>> that are hopelessly entangled that need to be undone as > > > CPEPs > > > > > but > > > > > >> > >>>>>> fortunately belong in core: Auth, Access, MultiRow). > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * I've tested running a branch-1 CPEP against a master > > with > > > > > these > > > > > >> > >>>>> patches > > > > > >> > >>>>>> in place and stuff like ACL (A CPEP) run from the > > branch-1 > > > > > shell > > > > > >> > >>> work > > > > > >> > >>>>>> against the branch-2 server. > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Stack < > > [email protected]> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> This project goes on. I updated HBASE-1563 "Shade > > > protobuf" > > > > > with > > > > > >> > >>> some > > > > > >> > >>>>> doc > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> on a final approach. We need to be able to refer to > both > > > > > shaded > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> non-shaded protobuf so we can support sending HDFS > > > > old-school > > > > > pb > > > > > >> > >>>>> Messages > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> but also so Coprocessor Endpoints keep working though > > > > > internally > > > > > >> > >>>>> protobufs > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> have been relocated. Funny you should ask, but yes, > > there > > > > are > > > > > >> some > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> downsides (as predicted by contributors on the JIRA). > > I'd > > > be > > > > > >> > >>>> interested > > > > > >> > >>>>> to > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> hear if they are too burdensome. In particular, your > IDE > > > > > >> experience > > > > > >> > >>>>> gets a > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> little convoluted as you will need to add to your > build > > > > path, > > > > > a > > > > > >> jar > > > > > >> > >>>> with > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> the relocated pbs. A pain. > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> St.Ack > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Stack < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sean Busbey < > > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > >> > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Stack < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> On an initial pass, the only difficult part seems > to > > be > > > > > >> > >>>> interaction > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> with > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> HDFS in asyncwal (might just pull in the HDFS > > > messages). > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> I have some idea how we can make this work either by > > > > pushing > > > > > >> > >>>> asyncwal > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> upstream to HDFS or through some maven tricks, > > depending > > > > on > > > > > >> how > > > > > >> > >>> much > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> time we have. > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Maven tricks? Tell us more. Here or drop a note up in > > the > > > > > >> issue. > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Sean, > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> St.Ack > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>>> -- > > > > > >> > >>>>> busbey > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
