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
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> Hadoop 2 compatibility issues


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Hadoop 2 compatibility issues
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
>> > > 1.6.0, with the planned accumulo-maven-plugin... because it means that
>> > > the accumulo-maven-plugin will need to be configured like this:
>> > > <plugin>
>> > >   <groupId>org.apache.accumulo</groupId>
>> > >   <artifactId>accumulo-maven-plugin</artifactId>
>> > >   <dependencies>
>> > >    ... all the required hadoop 1 dependencies to make the plugin work,
>> > > even though this version only works against hadoop 1 anyway...
>> > >   </dependencies>
>> > >   ...
>> > > </plugin>
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> I think Option 2 is the best solution for "waiting until we have the
>> > >> time to solve the problem correctly", as it ensures that transitive
>> > >> dependencies work for the stable version of Hadoop, and using Hadoop2
>> > >> is a very simple documentation issue for how to apply the patch and
>> > >> rebuild. Option 4 doesn't wait... it explicitly introduces a problem
>> > >> for users.
>> > >>
>> > >> Option 1 is how I'm tentatively thinking about fixing it properly in
>> > 1.6.0.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:56 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>> I'm an advocate of option 4. You say that it's ignoring the problem,
>> > >>> whereas I think it's waiting until we have the time to solve the
>> > problem
>> > >>> correctly. Your reasoning for this is for standardizing for maven
>> > >>> conventions, but the other options, while more 'correct' from a maven
>> > >>> standpoint or a larger headache for our user base and ourselves. In
>> > either
>> > >>> case, we're going to be breaking some sort of convention, and while
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