I agree that 1.6.1 might be a better target. Cassandra had a similar issue, and their solution was to basically re-implement more of the thrift code in their own code. Prior to that, they basically had an identical solution to ours for 0.9.0.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > If you can work around it to support both 0.9.0 and 0.9.1, I personally > wouldn't have any objections to seeing that change done in 1.6.1. > > I don't want to see it slow down 1.6.0 more though, either. > > > On 1/14/14, 8:06 PM, Christopher wrote: >> >> Personally, I'd like to see this done... because I'd like to, at some >> point, get Accumulo packaged into Fedora, and Thrift 0.9.1 is packaged >> for Fedora 20 (as well as Hadoop 2.2 and ZooKeeper 3.4). If this isn't >> done, a downstream patch will have to be made to package it for >> Fedora, or I'd have to wait until some version after 1.6.0. It's not a >> priority, certainly... but it would be quite useful to support either >> 0.9.0 or 0.9.1. >> >> -- >> Christopher L Tubbs II >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Ah, thanks, Keith. I apologize for my ignorance. >>> >>> I thought it was odd that we weren't using it already. >>> >>> >>> On 1/13/14, 6:26 PM, Keith Turner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> This was looked into and a problem was encountered ACCUMULO-1691 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Should we be updating to Thrift-0.9.1 before 1.6.0? >>>>> >>>>> Looks like https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-1869 has the >>>>> potential to affect us, although it is possible for us to bypass the >>>>> issue >>>>> by providing our own ExecutorService. >>>>> >>>> >>> >
