Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

The HADOOP-17046 has been merged now, so is it ready to publish the Hadoop 3.3.0 release ? Thank you! Brahma Reddy Battula 于2020年6月4日周四 下午10:27写道： > Yes, it's blocker for 3.3.0..Just I hold release for issue. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:08

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

Yes, it's blocker for 3.3.0..Just I hold release for issue. On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:08 AM Akira Ajisaka wrote: > > Please check https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17046 > > This Jira proposes to keep existing ProtobuRpcEngine as-is (without > shading and with protobuf-2.5.0 implementa

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

> Please check https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-17046 > This Jira proposes to keep existing ProtobuRpcEngine as-is (without shading and with protobuf-2.5.0 implementation) to support downstream implementations. Thank you, Vinay. I checked the PR and it mostly looks good. How do we proc

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

ProtobufHelper should not be a public API. Hadoop uses protobuf serialization to expertise RPC performance with many drawbacks. The generalized object usually require another indirection to map to usable Java object, this is making Hadoop code messy, and that is topic for another day. The main c

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

Hi Wei-chu and steve, Thanks for sharing insights. I have also tried to compile and execute ozone pointing to trunk(3.4.0-SNAPSHOT) which have shaded and upgraded protobuf. Other than just the usage of internal protobuf APIs, because of which compilation would break, I found another major proble

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

Okay. I am not going to be a purist and say "what were they doing -using our private APIs?" because as we all know, with things like UGI tagged @private there's been no way to get something is done without getting into the private stuff. But why did we do the protobuf changes? So that we could up

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

Most of the problems are downstream applications using Hadoop's private APIs. Tez: 17:08:38 2020/04/16 00:08:38 INFO: [ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR : 17:08:38 2020/04/16 00:08:38 INFO: [INFO] - 17:08:38 2020/04/16 00:08:38 INFO:

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

hi Wei-Chiu, Can you elaborate on what failures you are facing related to relocated protobuf classes.. ? IFAIK, if the issue with location of protobuf classes, still old jar protobuf-2.5.0.jar will be available in classpath. So downstream depending on 2.5.0 version of protobuf still be able to ac

Re: [NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

I'm sorry for coming to this late. I missed this message. It should have been a DISCUSS thread rather than NOTICE. Looks like this is inevitable. But we should make the downstream developers aware & make the update easier. As long as it is stated clearly how to update the code to support Hadoop 3.

[NOTICE] Removal of protobuf classes from Hadoop Token's public APIs' signature

Hi All, This mail is to notify about the Removal of following public APIs from Hadoop Common. ClassName: org.apache.hadoop.security.token.Token APIs: public Token(TokenProto tokenPB); public TokenProto toTokenProto(); Reason: These APIs are having Generated prot