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
I put together a tool that leverages Tom White's work.
Here is a review for it: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10361/

It will diff the public java api definitions of hbase in two git repos and
generate an HTML report. The tool will reside in the /dev-support folder.
The documentation is inline in the file.

I'd appreciate your input in how I can make it more useful and usable for
us.

Once we agree on the definitions of what classes are indeed public, we can
fine-tune this tool to ignore everything else.

-Aleks S.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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:*

Best Regards,

Aleks Shulman
847.814.5804
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