Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs


Copy link to this message
-
Re: ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs
I don't have any concerns with releasing features in 1.5.1, but please be
cognizant that the intent of
ACCUMULO-751<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-751>was
for wire compatibility across the 1.5.X series.

I'll strongly agree with Keith regarding a stable API - confusing and
constantly changing APIs are the most frustrating aspect of working with
certain projects (mapred/mapreduce, anyone?) and I think that's a path to
avoid.

Mike
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:49 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>  - Josh has brought up some technical concerns with the patch
>
>
>
>  - Eric said that he would be fine adding it in 1.5.1 after testing
>
>
>
>  - Keith suggests that we don't change the public API for this if it is
> likely to change
>
>
>
> +1 to all of the above. I think it's ok to add portions of a feature as
> they mature, but it doesn't make sense to add something that we know is
> going to drastically change later. Feature branches are great for
> experiments. Regardless of whether somebody wants it, if we deliver it now,
> then they will use and be dependent on a new, non-complete, deprecated
> feature.
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: "Keith Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: ACCUMULO-958 - Pluggable encryption in walogs
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Adam Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me attempt to make another argument for why the 958 patch should be
> > included in 1.5.0. What this patch represents is not an encryption
> solution
> > for WAL, but an experimental extension point that will be used for
> building
> > an encryption solution as a pluggable module. We need to judge its merit
> > based on whether it is a successful experimental extension point or not.
> > There are three main reasons for including the patch in 1.5.0:
> > 1. Test the performance impact of the null cipher solution (default
> > configuration) in all the performance tests we will be running for the
>
> I do experiments all of the time w/o including half done things in a
> release.
>
> Should I include the following in 1.5.0 just so I can experiment with
> it?  I was working on it got sidetracked and never got back to it.  At
> this point I am uncertain of its utility. It needs further
> experimentation.
>
> https://github.com/keith-turner/accumulo/tree/ACCUMULO-551
>
> > 1.5.0 release. If it causes problems there then we can roll it back.
> > 2. Enable the use of this extension after 1.5 is released. External
> > experiments have dependencies on this extension point. Without the
> > extension point we will have to test with unreleased versions of
> Accumulo,
> > which would be less than ideal.
>
> Back to ACCUMULO-551 I did experiements with that with not problem w/o
> including it in a release.  I just created a version of accumulo
> called accumulo-551-snapshot so no one would be confused if they
> encountered it.  What is wrong with the approach?
>
> > 3. It is not harmful and somebody wants it. The reason for wanting this
> > code in is well documented, so you need a very strong reason to throw it
> > out. Otherwise you will encourage forking of the project (which would be
> > bad).
>
> Forking over this seems illogical.
>
> If we leave it in and hide it, then should all of the configuration
> properties be removed?
>
> I would consider the config props to be part of the public API and not
> easily modified in the future.  Since the props may change as the full
> implementation evolves, I think it would make sense to remove them
> from the public API.  If left, we should modify the config to support
> marking the config props as experimental and also modify the code that
> generates config documentation.  I just want to avoid boxing ourselves
> in or having to make things confusing for users.
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>