Sorry for the dupe Benson, meant to reply all Oh no Benson, the compiled code is different. The fundamental issue is that some interfaces got changes to abstract classes or vice versa. The source is the same, but class files are different. Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. On May 14, 2013 7:09 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> 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 <vi...@apache.org> 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" <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Benson Margulies < > bimargul...@gmail.com > >> >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 <ctubb...@apache.org> > >> 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 <ctubb...@apache.org> > >> > 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 <vi...@apache.org> > 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 > >> > it's > >> > >>> not good, we should be doing the one that's less bad for US. The > >> > important > >> > >>> thing here, now, is that the poms work and we should go with the > >> method > >> > >>> that leaves the work minimal for our end users to utilize them. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I do agree that 1. is the correct option in the long run. More > >> > >>> specifically, I think it boils down to having a single module > >> > compatibility > >> > >>> layer, which is how hbase deals with this issue. But like you > said, > >> we > >> > >>> don't have the time to engineer a proper solution. So let sleeping > >> > dogs lie > >> > >>> and we can revamp the whole system for 1.5.1 or 1.6.0 when we have > >> the > >> > >>> cycles to do it right. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> So, I've run into a problem with ACCUMULO-1402 that requires a > >> larger > >> > >>>> discussion about how Accumulo 1.5.0 should support Hadoop2. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> The problem is basically that profiles should not contain > >> > >>>> dependencies, because profiles don't get activated transitively. > A > >> > >>>> slide deck by the Maven developers point this out as a bad > >> practice... > >> > >>>> yet it's a practice we rely on for our current implementation of > >> > >>>> Hadoop2 support > >> > >>>> ( > >> http://www.slideshare.net/aheritier/geneva-jug-30th-march-2010-maven > >> > >>>> slide 80). > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> What this means is that even if we go through the work of > publishing > >> > >>>> binary artifacts compiled against Hadoop2, neither our Hadoop1 > >> > >>>> binaries or our Hadoop2 binaries will be able to transitively > >> resolve > >> > >>>> any dependencies defined in profiles. This has significant > >> > >>>> implications to user code that depends on Accumulo Maven > artifacts. > >> > >>>> Every user will essentially have to explicitly add Hadoop > >> dependencies > >> > >>>> for every Accumulo artifact that has dependencies on Hadoop, > either > >> > >>>> because we directly or transitively depend on Hadoop (they'll > have > >> to > >> > >>>> peek into the profiles in our POMs and copy/paste the profile > into > >> > >>>> their project). This becomes more complicated when we consider > how > >> > >>>> users will try to use things like Instamo. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> There are workarounds, but none of them are really pleasant. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> 1. The best way to support both major Hadoop APIs is to have > >> separate > >> > >>>> modules with separate dependencies directly in the POM. This is a > >> fair > >> > >>>> amount of work, and in my opinion, would be too disruptive for > >> 1.5.0. > >> > >>>> This solution also gets us separate binaries for separate > supported > >> > >>>> versions, which is useful. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> 2. A second option, and the preferred one I think for 1.5.0, is > to > >> put > >> > >>>> a Hadoop2 patch in the branch's contrib directory > >> > >>>> (branches/1.5/contrib) that patches the POM files to support > >> building > >> > >>>> against Hadoop2. (Acknowledgement to Keith for suggesting this > >> > >>>> solution.) > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> 3. A third option is to fork Accumulo, and maintain two separate > >> > >>>> builds (a more traditional technique). This adds merging > nightmare > >> for > >> > >>>> features/patches, but gets around some reflection hacks that we > may > >> > >>>> have been motivated to do in the past. I'm not a fan of this > option, > >> > >>>> particularly because I don't want to replicate the fork nightmare > >> that > >> > >>>> has been the history of early Hadoop itself. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> 4. The last option is to do nothing and to continue to build with > >> the > >> > >>>> separate profiles as we are, and make users discover and specify > >> > >>>> transitive dependencies entirely on their own. I think this is > the > >> > >>>> worst option, as it essentially amounts to "ignore the problem". > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> At the very least, it does not seem reasonable to complete > >> > >>>> ACCUMULO-1402 for 1.5.0, given the complexity of this issue. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Thoughts? Discussion? Vote on option? > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> -- > >> > >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >>>> > >> > > >> >
