Jakob Homan wrote: >> While I see no problem in replacing the Hadoop RPC with the Netty >> implementation >> Avery contributed, I am not 100% sure about the implications in relation to >> secure vs. non-secure versions of Hadoop. > Those running netty in a secure cluster need to know we're totally > secure. Agreed that we need a better story in this situation. > > >> If changes to support different versions of Hadoop cannot be factored out, >> another option (IMHO better than the current situation) would be to maintain >> two >> or three small patches that people who want to use Giraph with a different >> version of Hadoop can eventually apply. > Munging needs to go, the sooner the better; shimming may be in the > future, although that's not ideal either. One option would be to not > support older versions aggressively, particularly with cross-version > rpc compatibility coming soon. But I'd like to avoid a roll-your-own > approach; we need to officially support and have versions for > different Hadoops. > > -jg
Jakob, given the fact that the changes to support multiple version of Hadoop in Giraph are minimal, do you think it would be possible to maintain three or four small patch files in the Giraph trunk and use those instead of munging and/or shimming? We can configure Jenkins to apply each patch and test at each commit. This is unusual and I would not propose it if the patches weren't very small and not willing to change much. Paolo
