Jean-Daniel Cryans 2013-04-04, 20:20
Nick Dimiduk 2013-04-04, 22:06
Andrew Purtell 2013-04-04, 22:21
-Re: Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?
lars hofhansl 2013-04-04, 22:59
I agree we need both, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
It's not something we paid a lot of attention to especially being forward-binary-compatible. I would guess that there will be many more of these issues.
Also, we have to qualify this statement somewhere. If you extend HRegionServer you cannot expect compatibility between releases. Of course that is silly, but it serves the point I am making.
For client visible classes (such as in this case) we should make it work, we identifies issues with Filters and Coprocessors in the past and kept them binary compatible on a best effort basis.
TL;DR: Let's fix this issue, and be wary of more such issues.
From: Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?
"Compatible" implies both to my understanding of the term, unless
I don't think we should qualify it. This looks like a regression to me.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> tl;dr should two compatible versions be considered both wire and
> binary compatible or just the former?
> Hey devs,
> 0.92 is compatible with 0.94, meaning that you can run a client for
> either against the other and you can roll restart from 0.92 to 0.94.
> What about binary compatibility? Meaning, can you run user code
> compiled against 0.92 with 0.94's jars?
> Unfortunately, the answer is "no" in this case if you invoke setters
> on HColumnDescriptor as you'll get:
> HBASE-5357 "Use builder pattern in HColumnDescriptor" changed the
> method signatures by changing "void" to "HColumnDescriptor" so it' not
> the same methods anymore.
> I don't think we really had talks about binary compatibility before so
> this is why I'm raising it up now.
> Should "compatible" versions be just wire compatible or both wire and
> binary compatible? The latter means we need new tests. I think it
> should be both.
> What do you guys think?
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
James Taylor 2013-04-04, 23:29
Andrew Purtell 2013-04-05, 00:53
James Taylor 2013-04-06, 20:11
Andrew Purtell 2013-04-09, 00:40
Enis Söztutar 2013-04-09, 03:02
Elliott Clark 2013-04-09, 04:49
Jean-Daniel Cryans 2013-04-15, 18:06
Jean-Daniel Cryans 2013-04-05, 17:12
Elliott Clark 2013-04-05, 23:06
Jean-Daniel Cryans 2013-04-04, 23:06
Stack 2013-04-05, 06:35
Stack 2013-04-04, 22:48