Ted Yu 2012-01-27, 04:25
Todd Lipcon 2012-01-27, 15:23
Ted Yu 2012-01-27, 15:50
As I recall, there were other API changes in zk 3.3 -> 3.4 that would
make reverting a bit more complicated. Like the change of
NIOServerCnxn.Factory -> NIOServerCnxnFactory (refactor to top level
class). So reverting while keeping 3.4 usage for security would
require more work to put in place some kind of shim layer.
In any case, security is meaningless without ZK 3.4, so I am not in
favor of reverting. I haven't been tracking 3.4 development closely,
so I don't know how much pain bugs in that release have been causing.
But 3.3 has had issues too. I was just bit by ZOOKEEPER-1208 last
week on a running cluster. Of course this issue is fixed in 3.3.4 and
3.4.0. But that would by my opinion for any current issues we're
seeing with 3.4 as well -- let's try to get them fixed and move on
instead of putting effort into backtracking for a temporary solution.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what we have done for internal repository.
> Some of the bugs in 3.4.x are hard to reproduce, track down and fix.
> Of course, Gary and Andrew's opinions are important.
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At one point I had proposed making the ZK dependency switch only for
>> the security profile in the pom. The ZK 3.4.x series has been buggy so
>> far - I'm sure it will stabilize within month or two, but I'd be +1
>> on reverting the non-secure build to 3.3.x in the meantime.
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > HBase 0.92 is using zookeeper 3.4.2
>> > Maybe some of you have seen this JIRA
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1367
>> > It looks like a serious issue.
>> > Cheers
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
Andrew Purtell 2012-01-27, 18:14
Ted Yu 2012-01-27, 18:26
Andrew Purtell 2012-01-27, 19:50
Stack 2012-01-27, 20:03
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-01-28, 01:49
Ted Yu 2012-01-27, 23:33