Since I'm not that close to DRILL-4280, I wanted to clarify expectation:
<1.9 Client <==> 1.9 Server (ok) 1.9 Client <==> <1.9 Server (fails) Is that correct? -- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > That's right; this was mentioned in the design document. > > I am piggybacking on previous changes that break the "newer clients talking > to older servers" compatibility. For example, as I understand, some > resolved sub-tasks of DRILL-4714 [1] *implicitly* break this compatibility; > say the "newer" API that was introduced is used by an application which is > talking to an older server. The older server drops the connection, unable > to handle the message. > > In DRILL-4280, there is an *explicit* break in that specific compatibility, > and the error message is much cleaner with a version mismatch message. The > difference is that the C++ client (unlike the Java client) checks for the > server version as well, which make the compatibility break more visible. > > I am not sure about the plan of action in general about this compatibility. > However, I could work around the issue by advertising clients' SASL > capability to the server. What do you think? > > Thank you, > Sudheesh > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4714 > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:49 PM, Laurent Goujon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just for clarity, DRILL-4280 is a breaking-protocol change, so is the plan > to defer this change to a later release, or to defer bringing back > compatibility between newer clients and older servers to a later release? > > Laurent > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Zelaine Fong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oops, mistake in my notes. For the second item, I meant DRILL-4280, not > DRILL-1950. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Zelaine Fong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Attendees: Paul, Padma, Sorabh, Boaz, Sudheesh, Vitalii, Roman, Dave O, > Arina, Laurent, Kunal, Zelaine > > I had to leave the hangout at 10:30, so my notes only cover the > > discussion > > up till then. > > 1) Variable width decimal support - Dave O > > Currently Drill only supports fixed width byte array storage of decimals. > Dave has submitted a pull request for DRILL-4834 to add support for > > storing > > decimals with variable width byte arrays. Eventually, variable width can > replace fixed width, but the pull request doesn't cover that. Dave would > like someone in the community to review his pull request. > > 2) 1.9 release - Sudheesh > > Sudheesh is collecting pull requests for the release. Some have been > reviewed and are waiting to be merged. Sudheesh plans to commit a batch > this Wed and another this Friday. He's targeting having a release > candidate build available next Monday. > > Laurent asked about Sudheesh's pull request for DRILL-1950. He asked > whether thought had been given to supporting newer Drill clients with > > older > > Drill servers. Sudheesh indicated that doing this would entail a > > breaking > > change in the protocol, and the plan was to defer doing this for a later > release where we may want to make other breaking changes like this. >
