gt;> > - no RPC incompatibilities
> > >> > - no API breaking changes to any user facing classes (now we'll pay
> > >> better
> > >> > attention to this)
> > >> > - best effort to keep coprocessor API changes backward compatible
> &
> >> >
> >> > If - on the other hand - we wanted to automate API checks then we'd
> need
> >> > tagging (either in form of an annotation or Javadoc)
> >> >
> >> > +1 on the javadoc tagging if you're willing to take than on. As other
> >> have
> >> > said -1 on pulling Inte
t; said -1 on pulling Interface Audience in.
>> > Your set of classes looks good.
>> >
>> > -- Lars
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Elliott Clark
>> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org&qu
. As other
> have
> > said -1 on pulling Interface Audience in.
> > Your set of classes looks good.
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________
> > From: Elliott Clark
> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> > Se
n.
> Your set of classes looks good.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
>
> From: Elliott Clark
> To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Declaring HBase Public API in 0.94
>
> Please don't pull in @InterfaceAudien
Clark
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org"
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Declaring HBase Public API in 0.94
Please don't pull in @InterfaceAudience. Keeping 0.2x compatibility was
something that was hard won in 0.94, it would be a real shame to loose that
now.
On Mon, Apr
> Given that it's only annotations, you also may be able to pull in the
Hadoop 2 annotations package without all of common (I believe it's a
separate maven artifact)
I fear that will cause even more problems, since 0.94 will still be run
against 0.23, and 2.x. I would vote for bringing the annotat
There's always the option of duplicating those annotations into the HBase
package if you want to annotate 0.94 without depending on Hadoop 2.
Given that it's only annotations, you also may be able to pull in the
Hadoop 2 annotations package without all of common (I believe it's a
separate maven ar
bq. Keeping 0.2x compatibility was something that was hard won in 0.94
True. We should maintain this status.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Elliott Clark wrote:
> Please don't pull in @InterfaceAudience. Keeping 0.2x compatibility was
> something that was hard won in 0.94, it would be a real
Please don't pull in @InterfaceAudience. Keeping 0.2x compatibility was
something that was hard won in 0.94, it would be a real shame to loose that
now.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Aleksandr Shulman wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> In light of all the conversation on compatibility, I wanted to fl
Hi everyone,
In light of all the conversation on compatibility, I wanted to float the
idea of documenting which Java packages, classes, and methods we want to
declare as being API compatible in 0.94.x. I'd like your input on:
1. JavaDoc vs. using AudienceInterface
2. What the javadoc notation shou
11 matches
Mail list logo
