Thanks for raising this topic Andrew and for the judicious framing of opinions (including the check that 'We have to make the best of the legacy of past engineering choices.').
As to our current CP 'dilemma', after catching-up on the issue and seeing the back and forth here, I am confident we can figure a pathway when I see the evident respect and understanding for the positions of others and apology given freely when misunderstanding. @Geoffrey: Thanks for taking the time to study the CP API offering and for turning up contradictions and for identifying a mistake (where comments would seem to carry more weight than API annotation). The comments are mine. They acknowledge that there is a problem with the class annotation and with WALEdit. As is it is not fit for CP exposure. The comments point out annotation-gymnastics that try to make it clear that the setters are off-limits to CPs. The WALEdit refactor -- the Interface that Duo suggests -- that should have been done as part of the Duo-led CP API necessary cleanup was punted on by me as being too disruptive at the time (WALEdit itself needs work). S On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:21 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Please let me direct your attention to the tail of HBASE-22623 for a larger > discussion. I tried to sum it up as follows: > > An opinion that we should have more and more coprocessor interfaces to > address new use cases is valid. An opinion that coprocessors are too > invasive and should be 'cleaned up' is also valid. An opinion that the > compatibility headaches of coprocessor interfaces are annoying is valid. An > opinion that Phoenix can be considered as a valid use case when considering > interface changes is valid. An opinion that only HBase level concerns > should motivate API changes is valid. These opinions are strawmen. I think > they approach actual positions in the community but I do not imply any > specific person has one of them. These strawmen are at least partially > contradictory. It is going to be an ongoing process to sort them out into > something that makes sense and can get consensus. > > So while as committer I am moving forward on HBASE-22623 because I don't > see a veto but instead a disagreement on the margins (deprecation or not) > motivated on larger principles, I also want to raise the visibility of the > disagreement because I think it impacts our relationship with another > project at Apache at a minimum, but also future technical directions of an > important subset of interfaces. > > For your consideration. > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
