Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Declaring HBase Public API in 0.94


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Declaring HBase Public API in 0.94
The advantage of the annotations is that Tom White already did the work for
jdiff to ignore non-public classes over in Hadoop land. We could leverage
that work, whether we re-use the o.a.h.classification annotations or add
our own copies in org.apache.hbase.*.

-Todd

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:08 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems we could just generally document that:
> - no RPC incompatibilities
> - no API breaking changes to any user facing classes (now we'll pay better
> attention to this)
> - best effort to keep coprocessor API changes backward compatible
>
> If - on the other hand - we wanted to automate API checks then we'd need
> tagging (either in form of an annotation or Javadoc)
>
> +1 on the javadoc tagging if you're willing to take than on. As other have
> said -1 on pulling Interface Audience in.
> Your set of classes looks good.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 1:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Declaring HBase Public API in 0.94
>
> Please don't pull in @InterfaceAudience.  Keeping 0.2x compatibility was
> something that was hard won in 0.94, it would be a real shame to loose that
> now.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Aleksandr Shulman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > In light of all the conversation on compatibility, I wanted to float the
> > idea of documenting which Java packages, classes, and methods we want to
> > declare as being API compatible in 0.94.x. I'd like your input on:
> > 1. JavaDoc vs. using AudienceInterface
> > 2. What the javadoc notation should look like
> > 3. Which pieces of code should be tagged
> >
> > What do I mean by documenting API compatibility? That means that we
> suggest
> > the anyone building applications use specific methods because they would
> > continue to be both binary and RPC-compatible going forward. Any
> > application written, either running on a node of a cluster or on a remote
> > machine, would continue to work properly without recompile for all
> versions
> > of 0.94.x running on the cluster.
> >
> > *Benefits:*
> > It would prevent developers from using calls that are subject to change.
> > This would give developers more confidence in using the platform, which
> > will encourage more development on our platform.
> > 0.94 will still be with us for some time and I think the
> > better-late-than-never approach will save us pain down the road. Finally,
> > it would allow us to more easily verify that we are in fact API
> compatible.
> >
> > *Can we use AudienceInterface?*
> > HBase 0.94 can be compiled against both hadoop 0.2x, 1.x, and 2.0.x. In
> the
> > case of 0.2x, the AudienceInterface classes were not bundled. Therefore,
> we
> > cannot expect HBase 0.94 to support it. For that reason, I think JavaDoc
> > might be better.
> > On the other hand, perhaps we might just want to bundle AudienceInterface
> > with 0.94 going forward? Then we can have consistent annotations in 0.94,
> > 0.95, and 0.96 without worrying about the hadoop version.
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.
> >
> > *Clarification of RPC compatibility:*
> > We care about RPC compatibility when we create clients that bundle their
> > dependency jars with them. These jars are used to form a request that is
> > executed on a remote machine (i.e. the cluster). If the cluster is
> upgraded
> > and no longer recognizes the command, then this will break RPC
> > compatibility.
> >
> > *Clarification of Binary compatibility:*
> > We care about binary compatibility when a client is created and compiled,
> > and the jars on which is depends change. It should still be able to form
> > requests using those jars. If the cluster is upgraded and the compiled
> > client code cannot find a method it was depending on to be there, we
> break
> > binary compatibility. A recent example is in 0.94.2, where the return

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB