I am going to update the pull request so that both will be "ok". This implies that username/password credentials will be sent to the server twice, during handshake and during SASL exchange. And sending credentials through handshake will be deprecated (and removed in a future release).
Thank you, Sudheesh On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > >
