Lars, I'm curious why you say the differences are easily isolated -- many of the core classes of Phoenix either directly inherit HBase classes or implement HBase interfaces, and those can vary between minor versions. (See my above example of a new coprocessor hook on BaseRegionObserver.)
Geoffrey On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:54 AM la...@apache.org <la...@apache.org> wrote: > Yep. The differences are pretty minimal - provided they can be isolated > easily. > Tephra might be a pretty good model. It supports various versions of HBase > in a single branch and has similar issues as Phoenix (coprocessors, etc). > -- Lars > On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 7:07:51 PM GMT+1, Josh Elser < > els...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
