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 >> Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Does compatibility between versions also mean binary compatibility?
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For normal client-level API's, I am not convinced that we should keep
> > binary compatibility between major versions. It will tie our hands of
> doing
> > some changes between major versions.
> >
>
> I agree with this.  Once we go 1.0 I'd be more inclined to agree with
> restricting breaking changes like this.  However I think as long as we're
> wire compatible that gets most of what our users really want, while
> allowing flexibility in developing new versions.
>
This is basically the question I'm asking the beginning of this thread: we
said 0.92 and 0.94 were "compatible", so does that mean wire+binary or just
wire? Most seem to think that compatibility meant the former. The problem
here was that when we decided that those versions were compatible, we
didn't qualify it and didn't test for binary compatibility.

I'm good with Enis' major/minor version compatibility specs.

J-D
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