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

Switch to Plain View
Accumulo, mail # dev - Hadoop 2 compatibility issues


+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 20:40
+
Sean Busbey 2013-05-14, 20:52
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 21:39
+
John Vines 2013-05-14, 20:56
+
Benson Margulies 2013-05-14, 21:16
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-14, 21:35
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 21:42
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 21:48
+
Benson Margulies 2013-05-14, 21:51
+
Keith Turner 2013-05-14, 22:13
+
John Vines 2013-05-14, 22:16
+
Benson Margulies 2013-05-14, 23:09
+
John Vines 2013-05-14, 23:43
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 23:36
+
Benson Margulies 2013-05-14, 23:41
+
Christopher 2013-05-14, 23:47
+
John Vines 2013-05-14, 23:50
+
Benson Margulies 2013-05-15, 00:27
+
Christopher 2013-05-15, 01:01
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-15, 21:31
+
Christopher 2013-05-15, 21:44
+
John Vines 2013-05-16, 00:03
+
Eric Newton 2013-05-16, 15:23
+
Adam Fuchs 2013-05-16, 15:51
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Hadoop 2 compatibility issues
John Vines 2013-05-14, 23:46
We've written the code such that it works in either, and then we have
profiles which set the hadoop.version for convenience. The profiles also
alternate between using hadoop-client and hadoop-core, but as I mentioned
above, that is unnecessary.

Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
On May 14, 2013 7:42 PM, "Benson Margulies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Benson-
> >
> > They produce different byte-code. That's why we're even considering
> > this. ACCUMULO-1402 is the ticket under which our intent is to add
> > classifiers, so that they can be distinguished.
>
> whoops, missed that.
>
> Then how do people succeed in just fixing up their dependencies and using
> it?
>
> In any case, speaking as a Maven-maven, classifiers are absolutely,
> positively, a cure worse than the disease. If you want the details
> just ask.
>
> >
> > All-
> >
> > To Keith's point, I think perhaps all this concern is a non-issue...
> > because as Keith points out, the dependencies in question are marked
> > as "provided", and dependency resolution doesn't occur for provided
> > dependencies anyway... so even if we leave off the profiles, we're in
> > the same boat. Maybe not the boat we should be in... but certainly not
> > a sinking one as I had first imagined. It's as afloat as it was
> > before, when they were not in a profile, but still marked as
> > "provided".
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I just doesn't make very much sense to me to have two different GAV's
> >> for the very same .class files, just to get different dependencies in
> >> the poms. However, if someone really wanted that, I'd look to make
> >> some scripting that created this downstream from the main build.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> They're the same currently. I was requesting separate gavs for hadoop
> 2.
> >>> It's been on the mailing list and jira.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
> >>> On May 14, 2013 6:14 PM, "Keith Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Benson Margulies <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> >wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > I am a maven developer, and I'm offering this advice based on my
> >>>> > understanding of reason why that generic advice is offered.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If you have different profiles that _build different results_ but
> all
> >>>> > deliver the same GAV, you have chaos.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> What GAV are we currently producing for hadoop 1 and hadoop 2?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If you have different profiles that test against different versions
> of
> >>>> > dependencies, but all deliver the same byte code at the end of the
> >>>> > day, you don't have chaos.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > > I think it's interesting that Option 4 seems to be most
> preferred...
> >>>> > > because it's the *only* option that is explicitly advised against
> by
> >>>> > > the Maven developers (from the information I've read). I can see
> its
> >>>> > > appeal, but I really don't think that we should introduce an
> explicit
> >>>> > > problem for users (that applies to users using even the Hadoop
> version
> >>>> > > we directly build against... not just those using Hadoop 2... I
> don't
> >>>> > > know if that point was clear), to only partially support a
> version of
> >>>> > > Hadoop that is still alpha and has never had a stable release.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > BTW, Option 4 was how I had have achieved a solution for
> >>>> > > ACCUMULO-1402, but am reluctant to apply that patch, with this
> issue
> >>>> > > outstanding, as it may exacerbate the problem.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Another implication for Option 4 (the current "solution") is for
+
Josh Elser 2013-05-14, 23:36
+
John Vines 2013-05-14, 21:59
+
John Vines 2013-05-14, 21:52
+
Keith Turner 2013-05-14, 22:08
+
Sean Busbey 2013-05-14, 22:14
+
Eric Newton 2013-05-14, 23:23