To clarify, you think that compat modules are better than that
separate-branches model in 4.x?
On 12/18/19 11:29 AM, la...@apache.org wrote:
This is really hard to follow.
I think we should do the same with HBase dependencies in Phoenix that HBase
does with Hadoop dependencies.
That is: We could have a maven module with the specific HBase version
dependent code.
Btw. Tephra does the same... A module for HBase version specific code.
-- Lars
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 10:00:31 AM GMT+1, Istvan Toth
<st...@apache.org> wrote:
What do you think about tying the minor releases to Hbase minor releases
(not necessarily one-to-one)
for example (provided 5.1 is 2020H1)
5.0.0 -> HB 2.0
5.1.0 -> HB 2.2.2 (and whatever 2.1 is API compatible with it)
5.1.x -> HB 2.2.x (treat as maintenance branch, no major new features)
5.2.0 -> HB 2.3.0 (if released by that time)
5.2.x -> HB 2.3.x (treat as maintenance branch, no major new features)
5.3.0 -> HB 2.3.x (if there is no new major/minor Hbase release)
master -> latest released HBase version
Alternatively, we could stick with the same HBase version for patch
releases that we used for the first minor release.
This would limit the number of branches that we have to maintain in
parallel, while providing maintenance branches for older releases, and
timely-ish Phoenix releases.
The drawback is that users of old HBase versions won't get the latest
features, on the other hand they can expect more polish.
Istvan
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:05 PM Geoffrey Jacoby <gjac...@apache.org> wrote:
Since HBase 2.0 is EOM'ed, I'm +1 for not worrying about 2.0.x
compatibility with the 5.x branch going forward.
Given how coupled Phoenix is to the implementation details of HBase though,
I'm not sure trying to abstract those away to keep one Phoenix branch per
HBase major version is practical, however. At the least, it would be really
complex.
For example, in the new year I plan to return to working on the change data
capture and Phoenix-level replication features, both of which depend on
WALKey interface changes and a new RegionObserver coprocessor hook
introduced in HBASE-22622 and HBASE-22623. This was released in HBase 1.5
and will be in the forthcoming HBase 2.3. While the HBase community is
discussing EOMing 1.3 right now, and maybe 1.4 will go in the medium term,
I don't see all pre-2.3 branch-2's getting deprecated anytime soon.
So there will be at least two significant features that can only exist in
some but not all of our 4.x and 5.x branches.
Geoffrey
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 8:21 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
As much as possible, I'd like to avoid us getting into another situation
with 5.x where we have multiple branches. My hope was/is that we can
keep one Phoenix5 branch that works against an acceptable set of HBase
branches.
To me, that acceptable set of HBase branches is _a_ 2.1 and 2.2 release.
I don't think we need to support all 2.1.x or 2.2.x, nor do I think we
need to keep trying to maintain 2.0.x as it's already end of support by
the HBase community.
Thanks for updating your PR. I'll add this to my review queue.
On 12/12/19 1:52 AM, Istvan Toth wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to start a conversation about supporting HBase 2.2. in the
master branch.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5268 has a slightly out
of
date, but functional PR for HBase 2.2 support on master. (Please review
and comment if you have the time, I'll try to update the PR in the next
few days)
The reason that it is not a straightforward decision to merge it is
that
applying that patch breaks compatibility with HBase 2.0.1, the current
base.
I can see the following outcomes:
- Do nothing
- Move master to HBase 2.2.2
- Fork master to Hbase-2.0 and Hbase-2.2 branches
- Build time compatibility modules
- Run time compatibility modules
- Something that I haven't thought of
Doing nothing is obviously not a long term solution, as the current
master doesn't work with any of the currently supported HBase branches,
but we may postpone the inevitable.
Simply moving master to HBase 2.2 is the most attractive solution from
a
pure developer POV, but there may be other considerations.
Having multiple masters for 2.0 and 2.2 is simple from a code
perspective, but maintaining two branches is a non-trivial amount of
additional work. (See the 4.x situation)
Moving the HBase version dependent stuff into a separate module, and
choosing at build time is not pretty from a code POV, but saves us the
hassle of maintaining multiple branches, while maintaining
compatibility
with multiple HBase versions, and can handle future API changes as
well
from a single branch. Doing something like this could have saved us the
effort of maintaining three separate 4.x branches.
I feel that since Phoenix is closely timed to HBase, and requires
cluster-wide HBase configuration to work anyway, handling the different
HBase versions from the same binary/JAR is not worth the effort.
Please share your thoughts!
regards
Istvan
