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

Switch to Threaded View
Pig, mail # dev - [Discussion] Any thoughts on PIG-3457?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [Discussion] Any thoughts on PIG-3457?
Aniket Mokashi 2013-09-30, 22:37
+1 on reverting PIG-3419 and applying it to tez branch if its blocking
pig-0.12 release.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Cheolsoo Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am waiting for +1 from Twitter.
>
> Like Alan suggested, let's revert PIG-3419 et al in 0.12 first. Then, we
> can decide what to do in trunk. I volunteer to do grunt work since I am the
> one who committed them.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Rohini Palaniswamy <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > +1. I was already asking for keeping the new API changes only in Tez
> branch
> > till it evolves and is finalized, so I have no objections to reverting
> it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rohini
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We should separate out two separate concerns.  If I understand
> correctly
> > > we don't need any of these changes in 0.12.  So we should revert these
> > > patches from the 12 branch so that we can get it released quickly in a
> > > backwards compatible way.
> > >
> > > We will then have plenty of time to discuss the separate question of
> how
> > > we proceed going forward (deprecated APIs or new APIs).
> > >
> > > Alan.
> > >
> > > On Sep 30, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Cheolsoo Park wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jeremy,
> > > >
> > > > What you're saying makes sense, and patch is welcome. ;-) But
> > complexity
> > > > comes from that there are many classes that are associated with one
> > > > another, and it seems necessary to bring back all of them together in
> > > order
> > > > to provide full backward compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > After spending many hours on the weekend, I concluded that adding
> more
> > > > workarounds (classes, methods, packages, etc) to the current code
> makes
> > > it
> > > > only less maintainable and readable. So I prefer a simpler approach.
> > > >
> > > > For eg, we can just publish two jars - pig.jar w/ old API and
> > pig-new.jar
> > > > w/ new API - maybe not in 0.12 but in 0.13. Since we already have a
> > > > tez-branch, we can use it to manage the new version of classes. Then,
> > > users
> > > > can switch to pig-new.jar gradually in 0.13 and 0.14. When we finally
> > > merge
> > > > tez-branch into trunk, we can publish a single jar again.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, this is not trivial either because we have to maintain two
> > > > branches. But I feel that managing two branches independently is
> easier
> > > > than maintaining all sorts of workarounds for backward compatibility
> in
> > > the
> > > > source code. In addition, we will have more flexibility in terms of
> > > > designing new API because we will be completely free from backward
> > > > compatibility. No?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cheolsoo
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeremy Karn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> What about the option of leaving all of the MR specific logic in the
> > > >> original classes but marking those methods as deprecated and telling
> > > people
> > > >> to switch to using a MR specific object that extends the original
> > class.
> > > >> So for example:
> > > >>
> > > >> JobStats - Reverted to being as it was before PIG-3419 but with all
> MR
> > > >> specific logic deprecated.
> > > >> MRJobStats - Would just extend JobStats.
> > > >>
> > > >> If we did this, external software could switch their code from using
> > > >> JobStats to MRJobStats at their own pace and without breaking
> against
> > > any
> > > >> specific version of Pig.  After a few versions the MR specific logic
> > > could
> > > >> be removed from JobStats and pushed into MRJobStats and it shouldn't
> > > break
> > > >> anything for people that had made that change.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not familiar with all of the changes in PIG-3419 so this might
> not
> > > work
> > > >> everywhere.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Cheolsoo Park <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> To be specific, we will need to revert all the following commits in

"...:::Aniket:::... Quetzalco@tl"