Yep that.
For the record... I do not think this is simple. But it is possible.
On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 8:37:37 PM GMT+1, Andrew Purtell
<apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
I can't answer for Lars but whenever version incompatibilities come up
usually only a handful of files are impacted. In the last round, the
Phoenix access controller, a related file in the same directory, and the
RPC scheduler. If you cloned these into separate version specific maven
modules case by case as needed at each round the differences are fairly
small. On the other hand if you take a principled approach and abstract all
the things, it will be a huge effort and nobody realistically will want to
take it on.
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM Geoffrey Jacoby <gjac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
