Stack 2012-12-20, 21:20
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-20, 22:10
-Re: DISCUSSION: 0.96.0: Purge CoprocessorProtocol and all associated parts of this jettisoned engine?
Stack 2012-12-20, 23:40
I've actually messed up in that this issue has already been discussed back
in September and consensus was to go with purging CoprocessorProtocol [1
and 2]. Sorry for the noise. Let me go make a patch.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We will have to support two very different underpinnings for an exotic
> critical feature
> I think this means supporting CoprocessorProtocol based endpoint RPC in
> 0.94 and PB based endpoint RPC in 0.96+. If so then yes.
> + Normalizes interactions over RPC with HBase. Everything speaks protobufs.
> The fact is HBase 0.96 has a redesigned RPC stack, and coprocessor
> endpoints wrap RPC. This change is IMO a necessary consequence of other
> changes we have already decided upon and committed.
> I can help out with transitions from a 0.94 world to a 0.96+ one too.
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are folks down with purging CoprocessorProtocol in 0.96 and all of its
> > associated machinery?
> > For example, Andrew Purtell says "I'd be +1 with dropping
> > CoprocessorProtocol from 0.96 and up, given all of the other (deliberate)
> > incompatibilities posed with RPC going from 0.94 to 0.96 and up." .
> > CoprocessorProtocol is how we did dynamic endpoints before 0.96/trunk
> > we are moving to protobuf'ing all rpc Interactions. Dynamic endpoints
> > now done using CoprocessorService where you define your endpoint as a
> > protobuf Service .
> > Cons:
> > + Any current coprocessor dynamic endpoint will need to be refactored to
> > run on 0.96
> > + We will have to support two very different underpinnings for an exotic
> > though critical feature (We'd have to do this if we wanted to deprecate
> > purge in another release)
> > Pros:
> > + Purge a bunch of code. Simplify RPC. Save a bunch of effort making
> > both mechanisms work. One, "cleaner" (though perhaps more verbose) way
> > implementing dynamic endpoints.
> > I'm in favor of purge without deprecation. I've done a few convertions.
> > volunteer to help out anyone who needs to make the transition.
> > St.Ack
> > 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6789
> > 2. http://goo.gl/fSTLM
> Best regards,
> - Andy
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
Andrew Purtell 2012-12-21, 00:04