Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
bq. Thanks Vrushali. We are currently in the throes of refactoring our Coprocessor API. Let us use the Timeline Service Coprocessors as our guinea pigs migrating off the old to the new, so you don't have to do it (smile). Thanks Stack, all yours! I have been lurking on Appy's HBASE-17732 and am trying to follow along. Do let me know if/how I can help. thanks Vrushali On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Stack wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Vrushali C > wrote: > > > Thanks everyone. > > > > bq. Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information > you've > > provided has been helpful. > > > > Sure, happy to chat further if anyone wants. > > > > Here are the two files which actually operate on Tags in YARN Timeline > > service. We are using HBase 1.2.6 at present. > > > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn- > > project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn- > > server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/ > hadoop/yarn/server/ > > timelineservice/storage/flow/FlowRunCoprocessor.java > > > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn- > > project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn- > > server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/ > hadoop/yarn/server/ > > timelineservice/storage/flow/FlowScanner.java > > > > There are some utility functions in > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn- > > project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn- > > server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/ > hadoop/yarn/server/ > > timelineservice/storage/common/HBaseTimelineStorageUtils.java > > > > which are called from the FlowScanner and FlowRunCoprocessor classes. > > > > > Thanks Vrushali. We are currently in the throes of refactoring our > Coprocessor API. Let us use the Timeline Service Coprocessors as our guinea > pigs migrating off the old to the new, so you don't have to do it (smile). > > S > > > > > thanks > > Vrushali > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > > > Sounds like we have some consensus to make a switch to > > > LimitedPrivate(COPROC)+Evolving on Tag (and CellUtil methods?) for > 2.0? > > I > > > don't think we have to make API changes (to mitigate Sean's concerns of > > > slowing 2.0). We can treat this as a "bigger" promise moving forward. > > > > > > I can open a JIRA issue to hash out the rest of the specifics if we're > in > > > agreement. > > > > > > Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information you've > > > provided has been helpful. > > > > > > > > > On 9/22/17 1:09 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > > > >> In my opinion that's a valid use case we should support with > appropriate > > >> changes to interface annotations and, therefore, stability. I don't > > >> believe > > >> the interfaces have been changing much, so this shouldn't represent a > > >> problem other than maybe we want to review what we have before > promoting > > >> them. The security coprocessors do the same: they use tags to add > > special > > >> metadata to cells, then apply additional logic/filtering while > > overriding > > >> some scanner behavior. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Vrushali C > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only > in > > >>> the > > >>> coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during > > >>> get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. > > >>> > > >>> thanks > > >>> Vrushali > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an > oversight. > > In > > my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do > > that > > too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access > to > > tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for > > replication.) > > > > >>> LP > > >>> > > doesn't imply what Public might. > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive > > > > > information > > >>> > > like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for > > discussion > > when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to > > > > >>> lessen > > >>> > > the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > >> > > >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me > > >> > > > extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be > > accessed > > > > >>> by > > >>> > > users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just > > can't > > > > >>> see > > >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Vrushali C wrote: > Thanks everyone. > > bq. Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information you've > provided has been helpful. > > Sure, happy to chat further if anyone wants. > > Here are the two files which actually operate on Tags in YARN Timeline > service. We are using HBase 1.2.6 at present. > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn- > project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn- > server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/ > timelineservice/storage/flow/FlowRunCoprocessor.java > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn- > project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn- > server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/ > timelineservice/storage/flow/FlowScanner.java > > There are some utility functions in > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn- > project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn- > server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/ > timelineservice/storage/common/HBaseTimelineStorageUtils.java > > which are called from the FlowScanner and FlowRunCoprocessor classes. > > Thanks Vrushali. We are currently in the throes of refactoring our Coprocessor API. Let us use the Timeline Service Coprocessors as our guinea pigs migrating off the old to the new, so you don't have to do it (smile). S > thanks > Vrushali > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > Sounds like we have some consensus to make a switch to > > LimitedPrivate(COPROC)+Evolving on Tag (and CellUtil methods?) for 2.0? > I > > don't think we have to make API changes (to mitigate Sean's concerns of > > slowing 2.0). We can treat this as a "bigger" promise moving forward. > > > > I can open a JIRA issue to hash out the rest of the specifics if we're in > > agreement. > > > > Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information you've > > provided has been helpful. > > > > > > On 9/22/17 1:09 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > > >> In my opinion that's a valid use case we should support with appropriate > >> changes to interface annotations and, therefore, stability. I don't > >> believe > >> the interfaces have been changing much, so this shouldn't represent a > >> problem other than maybe we want to review what we have before promoting > >> them. The security coprocessors do the same: they use tags to add > special > >> metadata to cells, then apply additional logic/filtering while > overriding > >> some scanner behavior. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Vrushali C > >> wrote: > >> > >> For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only in > >>> the > >>> coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during > >>> get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> Vrushali > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. > In > my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do > that > too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to > tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for > replication.) > > >>> LP > >>> > doesn't imply what Public might. > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell > > > > wrote: > > > > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive > > > information > >>> > like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for > discussion > when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to > > >>> lessen > >>> > the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> > >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me > >> > > extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be > accessed > > >>> by > >>> > users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just > can't > > >>> see > >>> > that metadata" ;) > > > > >> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. > >> > > Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this > for > > >>> that > >>> > time. > > > > >> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the > >> > > "downstream pain" for 2.0. > > > > >> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: > >>> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not > >>> > >> much > > > cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't > >>> > >> expose > >>> > any > > > APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably mov
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Thanks everyone. bq. Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information you've provided has been helpful. Sure, happy to chat further if anyone wants. Here are the two files which actually operate on Tags in YARN Timeline service. We are using HBase 1.2.6 at present. https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/timelineservice/storage/flow/FlowRunCoprocessor.java https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/timelineservice/storage/flow/FlowScanner.java There are some utility functions in https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/hadoop-yarn-project/hadoop-yarn/hadoop-yarn-server/hadoop-yarn-server-timelineservice-hbase/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/server/timelineservice/storage/common/HBaseTimelineStorageUtils.java which are called from the FlowScanner and FlowRunCoprocessor classes. thanks Vrushali On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > Sounds like we have some consensus to make a switch to > LimitedPrivate(COPROC)+Evolving on Tag (and CellUtil methods?) for 2.0? I > don't think we have to make API changes (to mitigate Sean's concerns of > slowing 2.0). We can treat this as a "bigger" promise moving forward. > > I can open a JIRA issue to hash out the rest of the specifics if we're in > agreement. > > Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information you've > provided has been helpful. > > > On 9/22/17 1:09 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> In my opinion that's a valid use case we should support with appropriate >> changes to interface annotations and, therefore, stability. I don't >> believe >> the interfaces have been changing much, so this shouldn't represent a >> problem other than maybe we want to review what we have before promoting >> them. The security coprocessors do the same: they use tags to add special >> metadata to cells, then apply additional logic/filtering while overriding >> some scanner behavior. >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Vrushali C >> wrote: >> >> For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only in >>> the >>> coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during >>> get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. >>> >>> thanks >>> Vrushali >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell < >>> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. In my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do that too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for replication.) >>> LP >>> doesn't imply what Public might. On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive > information >>> like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to >>> lessen >>> the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me >> > extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed >>> by >>> users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't >>> see >>> that metadata" ;) > >> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. >> > Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for >>> that >>> time. > >> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the >> > "downstream pain" for 2.0. > >> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: >>> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not >>> >> much > cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't >>> >> expose >>> any > APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving >>> >> to >>> LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some >>> >> users >>> depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a >>> >> One of > case. >>> And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() >>> >> should >>> have > been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and >>> >> also > Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not >>> >> having > a PRivate interface like Tag in
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Tags are / were intended as special extra bits of metadata which may be associated with a cell, therefore stored adjacent to the cell's serialized representation, for use within the server process by coprocessors. They are not meant to be user visible. The default RPC codec strips them out. The replication RPC codec makes an exception so all cell state including tags are replicated. The initial users for tags were the AccessController and VisibiltyController coprocessors. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > Maybe my expectations are just invalid to start :) > > I'm thinking about the cell-level visibility feature specifically. I'm > happy to back away from this point as I'm getting the impression that I'm > trying to call an apple an orange. > > Let me take an action to read what currently does exist and come back > later. I also need to look more closely at how YARN is using the Tags now > to understand if they way they're using the feature is inappropriate out of > the gates. > > > On 9/22/17 12:11 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive information >> like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion >> when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to lessen >> the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. >> >> >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: >>> >>> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me >>> extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by >>> users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see >>> that metadata" ;) >>> >>> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. >>> Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that >>> time. >>> >>> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the >>> "downstream pain" for 2.0. >>> >>> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of case. And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen going forward from 2.0? Regards Ram > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think > it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and > start working in some tooling to help us. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >> That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code >> > we've > >> explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the >> current >> state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: >>> >>> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public >>> APIs. >>> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond >>> opaque symbols. >>> >>> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks >>> don't > >> consider tags to be intended for users :) On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? > > We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep > their > >> usage intact. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser > wrote: > >> > Hiya, >> >> (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of >> looking >> through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the >> > latest > >> hbase-2.0.0*) >> >> Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Sounds like we have some consensus to make a switch to LimitedPrivate(COPROC)+Evolving on Tag (and CellUtil methods?) for 2.0? I don't think we have to make API changes (to mitigate Sean's concerns of slowing 2.0). We can treat this as a "bigger" promise moving forward. I can open a JIRA issue to hash out the rest of the specifics if we're in agreement. Thanks for the context in this thread, Vrushali. The information you've provided has been helpful. On 9/22/17 1:09 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: In my opinion that's a valid use case we should support with appropriate changes to interface annotations and, therefore, stability. I don't believe the interfaces have been changing much, so this shouldn't represent a problem other than maybe we want to review what we have before promoting them. The security coprocessors do the same: they use tags to add special metadata to cells, then apply additional logic/filtering while overriding some scanner behavior. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Vrushali C wrote: For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only in the coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. thanks Vrushali On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. In my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do that too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for replication.) LP doesn't imply what Public might. On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive information like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to lessen the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see that metadata" ;) I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that time. Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the "downstream pain" for 2.0. On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of case. And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen going forward from 2.0? Regards Ram On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and start working in some tooling to help us. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code we've explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. Thanks. On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond opaque symbols. ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't consider tags to be intended for users :) On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: Hiya, (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest hbase-2.0.0*) Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see that they're relying on the Tag inte
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Maybe my expectations are just invalid to start :) I'm thinking about the cell-level visibility feature specifically. I'm happy to back away from this point as I'm getting the impression that I'm trying to call an apple an orange. Let me take an action to read what currently does exist and come back later. I also need to look more closely at how YARN is using the Tags now to understand if they way they're using the feature is inappropriate out of the gates. On 9/22/17 12:11 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive information like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to lessen the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see that metadata" ;) I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that time. Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the "downstream pain" for 2.0. On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of case. And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen going forward from 2.0? Regards Ram On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and start working in some tooling to help us. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code we've explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. Thanks. On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond opaque symbols. ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't consider tags to be intended for users :) On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: Hiya, (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest hbase-2.0.0*) Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see that they're relying on the Tag interface. Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public CellUtil. My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method with Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. - Josh
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
In my opinion that's a valid use case we should support with appropriate changes to interface annotations and, therefore, stability. I don't believe the interfaces have been changing much, so this shouldn't represent a problem other than maybe we want to review what we have before promoting them. The security coprocessors do the same: they use tags to add special metadata to cells, then apply additional logic/filtering while overriding some scanner behavior. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Vrushali C wrote: > For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only in the > coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during > get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. > > thanks > Vrushali > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. In > > my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do that > > too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to > > tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for replication.) > LP > > doesn't imply what Public might. > > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive > information > > like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion > > when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to > lessen > > the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > > > > > > > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > >> > > >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me > > extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed > by > > users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't > see > > that metadata" ;) > > >> > > >> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. > > Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for > that > > time. > > >> > > >> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the > > "downstream pain" for 2.0. > > >> > > >>> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: > > >>> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not > > much > > >>> cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't > expose > > any > > >>> APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving > to > > >>> LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some > users > > >>> depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a > > One of > > >>> case. > > >>> And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() > should > > have > > >>> been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and > > also > > >>> Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not > > having > > >>> a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. > > >>> 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could > happen > > >>> going forward from 2.0? > > >>> Regards > > >>> Ram > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey > > wrote: > > Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think > > it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 > and > > start working in some tooling to help us. > > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser > > wrote: > > > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on > > code > > we've > > > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the > > current > > > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > >> On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > >> > > >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public > > APIs. > > >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them > beyond > > >> opaque symbols. > > >> > > >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this > > doesn't > > >>> make > > >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. > > >>> > > >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a > > supported > > >>> API > > >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of > folks > > don't > > >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) > > >>> > > >>> > > On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > > Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? > > > > We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to > keep > > their > > usage intact. > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser > > > wrote: > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
I am in favor of adding LimitedPrivate(Coprocessor) to Tag related API. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Vrushali C wrote: > For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only in the > coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during > get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. > > thanks > Vrushali > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. In > > my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do that > > too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to > > tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for replication.) > LP > > doesn't imply what Public might. > > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive > information > > like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion > > when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to > lessen > > the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > > > > > > > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > >> > > >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me > > extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed > by > > users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't > see > > that metadata" ;) > > >> > > >> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. > > Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for > that > > time. > > >> > > >> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the > > "downstream pain" for 2.0. > > >> > > >>> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: > > >>> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not > > much > > >>> cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't > expose > > any > > >>> APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving > to > > >>> LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some > users > > >>> depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a > > One of > > >>> case. > > >>> And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() > should > > have > > >>> been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and > > also > > >>> Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not > > having > > >>> a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. > > >>> 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could > happen > > >>> going forward from 2.0? > > >>> Regards > > >>> Ram > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey > > wrote: > > Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think > > it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 > and > > start working in some tooling to help us. > > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser > > wrote: > > > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on > > code > > we've > > > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the > > current > > > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > >> On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > >> > > >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public > > APIs. > > >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them > beyond > > >> opaque symbols. > > >> > > >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this > > doesn't > > >>> make > > >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. > > >>> > > >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a > > supported > > >>> API > > >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of > folks > > don't > > >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) > > >>> > > >>> > > On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > > Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? > > > > We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to > keep > > their > > usage intact. > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser > > > wrote: > > > > > Hiya, > > > > > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task > of > > > looking > > > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with > the > > latest > > > hbase-2.0.0*) > > > > > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application > > TimelineServer, I > > > see > > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
For what it's worth, Yarn Timeline Service v2 makes use of Tags only in the coprocessor code in the custom Scanner that is invoked during get/scan/compact and at the PrePut step. thanks Vrushali On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. In > my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do that > too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to > tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for replication.) LP > doesn't imply what Public might. > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell > wrote: > > > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive information > like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion > when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to lessen > the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > > > > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > >> > >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me > extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by > users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see > that metadata" ;) > >> > >> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. > Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that > time. > >> > >> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the > "downstream pain" for 2.0. > >> > >>> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: > >>> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not > much > >>> cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose > any > >>> APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to > >>> LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users > >>> depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a > One of > >>> case. > >>> And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should > have > >>> been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and > also > >>> Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not > having > >>> a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. > >>> 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen > >>> going forward from 2.0? > >>> Regards > >>> Ram > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think > it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and > start working in some tooling to help us. > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser > wrote: > > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on > code > we've > > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the > current > > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > >> On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >> > >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public > APIs. > >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond > >> opaque symbols. > >> > >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface > >> > >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser > wrote: > >>> > >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this > doesn't > >>> make > >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. > >>> > >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a > supported > >>> API > >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks > don't > >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) > >>> > >>> > On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? > > We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep > their > usage intact. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser > wrote: > > > Hiya, > > > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of > > looking > > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the > latest > > hbase-2.0.0*) > > > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application > TimelineServer, I > > see > > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the > Public > > CellUtil. > > > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the > intent > > is > > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we sh
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
I think not making the relevant APIs LP(Coprocessor) was an oversight. In my opinion we should do that. I'm not sure about Public. We could do that too but somewhere we need to call out that coprocessors have access to tags, but not clients. (Tags are removed at RPC except for replication.) LP doesn't imply what Public might. > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive information like > labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion when they > were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to lessen the > surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >> I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me extremely >> odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by users. >> "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see that >> metadata" ;) >> >> I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. Like >> MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that time. >> >> Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the "downstream >> pain" for 2.0. >> >>> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: >>> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much >>> cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any >>> APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to >>> LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users >>> depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of >>> case. >>> And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have >>> been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also >>> Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having >>> a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. >>> 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen >>> going forward from 2.0? >>> Regards >>> Ram On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and start working in some tooling to help us. > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code we've > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > Thanks. > > >> On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: >> >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond >> opaque symbols. >> >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface >> >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >>> >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't >>> make >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. >>> >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported >>> API >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) >>> >>> On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Hiya, > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of > looking > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest > hbase-2.0.0*) > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I > see > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public > CellUtil. > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent > is > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public > methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method > with > Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such > example. > > - Josh > >>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Tags are server side internal metadata. Some carry sensitive information like labels. I guess this could appear odd if not around for discussion when they were introduced. So what documentation can be improved to lessen the surprise? Javadoc? Online book? A JIRA with suggestions welcome. > On Sep 22, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > > I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me extremely > odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by users. > "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see that > metadata" ;) > > I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. Like > MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that time. > > Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the "downstream > pain" for 2.0. > >> On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: >> CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much >> cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any >> APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to >> LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users >> depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of >> case. >> And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have >> been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also >> Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having >> a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. >> 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen >> going forward from 2.0? >> Regards >> Ram >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: >>> Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think >>> it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and >>> start working in some tooling to help us. >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code >>> we've explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. Thanks. > On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. > we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond > opaque symbols. > > ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface > >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't >> make >> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. >> >> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported >> API >> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks >>> don't >> consider tags to be intended for users :) >> >> >>> On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? >>> >>> We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep >>> their >>> usage intact. >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser >>> wrote: >>> Hiya, (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the >>> latest hbase-2.0.0*) Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see that they're relying on the Tag interface. Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public CellUtil. My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public >>> method with Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. - Josh >>> >> >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed by users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just can't see that metadata" ;) I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0. Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for that time. Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the "downstream pain" for 2.0. On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote: CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of case. And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen going forward from 2.0? Regards Ram On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and start working in some tooling to help us. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code we've explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. Thanks. On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond opaque symbols. ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't consider tags to be intended for users :) On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: Hiya, (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest hbase-2.0.0*) Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see that they're relying on the Tag interface. Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public CellUtil. My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method with Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. - Josh
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of case. And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class. 3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen going forward from 2.0? Regards Ram On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think > it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and > start working in some tooling to help us. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code > we've > > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current > > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >> > >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. > >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond > >> opaque symbols. > >> > >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > >>> > >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't > >>> make > >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. > >>> > >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported > >>> API > >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks > don't > >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? > > We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep > their > usage intact. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser > wrote: > > > Hiya, > > > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of > > looking > > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the > latest > > hbase-2.0.0*) > > > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I > > see > > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public > > CellUtil. > > > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent > > is > > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public > > methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public > method > > with > > Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such > > example. > > > > - Josh > > > > >>> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and start working in some tooling to help us. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code we've > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > Thanks. > > > On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: >> >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond >> opaque symbols. >> >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >>> >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't >>> make >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. >>> >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported >>> API >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) >>> >>> >>> On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Hiya, > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of > looking > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest > hbase-2.0.0*) > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I > see > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public > CellUtil. > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent > is > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public > methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method > with > Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such > example. > > - Josh > >>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Maybe I'm stuck on the same pet idea that I suggested in the Filter discussion, but does it make sense to replace the IA.Private types returned from public methods with zero-method interfaces for the return type? Then instead of saying "this is an opaque object, don't call any methods on it, but you can pass it around where you need" we can actually enforce that. Probably a relatively big change for this late in the game, but maybe HBase 3 will be much faster than HBase 2 baked. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code > we've explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the > current state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. > > Thanks. > > > On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond >> opaque symbols. >> >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't >>> make >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. >>> >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported >>> API >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't >>> consider tags to be intended for users :) >>> >>> >>> On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: >>> Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: Hiya, > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of > looking > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest > hbase-2.0.0*) > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I > see > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public > CellUtil. > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent > is > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public > methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method > with > Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such > example. > > - Josh > > >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code we've explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it. Thanks. On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond opaque symbols. ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't consider tags to be intended for users :) On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: Hiya, (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest hbase-2.0.0*) Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see that they're relying on the Tag interface. Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public CellUtil. My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method with Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. - Josh
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond opaque symbols. ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make > sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. > > It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API > call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't > consider tags to be intended for users :) > > > On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: >> >> Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? >> >> We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their >> usage intact. >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: >> >>> Hiya, >>> >>> (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking >>> through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest >>> hbase-2.0.0*) >>> >>> Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see >>> that they're relying on the Tag interface. >>> >>> Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public >>> CellUtil. >>> >>> My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is >>> for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? >>> >>> If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public >>> methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method >>> with >>> Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. >>> >>> - Josh >>> >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't consider tags to be intended for users :) On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: Hiya, (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest hbase-2.0.0*) Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see that they're relying on the Tag interface. Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public CellUtil. My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method with Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. - Josh
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Hi Josh, Yes, you are right, the Yarn Timeline Server uses tags as well as coprocessors. So yes, we do need to update the timeline server usage of tags & coprocessors when those apis change. @Ted: I like the idea of marking them as LimitedPrivate and noting that YARN TSv2 uses those. thanks Vrushali On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? > > We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their > usage intact. > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > Hiya, > > > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking > > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest > > hbase-2.0.0*) > > > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see > > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public > > CellUtil. > > > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is > > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public > > methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method > with > > Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. > > > > - Josh > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their usage intact. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Hiya, > > (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking > through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest > hbase-2.0.0*) > > Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see > that they're relying on the Tag interface. > > Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public > CellUtil. > > My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is > for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? > > If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public > methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method with > Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. > > - Josh >
