On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014 6:55 AM, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > (I was still confused so I just chatted with John on the subject of his > -1) > > > > He was under the impression that it would not be feasible to leave the > existing 1.X APIs in place with the creation of the 2.0 APIs; whereas, I > had assumed that this wouldn't be an issue. > > > > He brought up the issue of how we plan to handle exceptions in the new > API which, would very likely, include changes to the Thrift APIs as well. > If this is the case, we'd now have to support the 1.X API (while it existed > as deprecated) as well as the new 2.0 API. This would likely affect how we > actually want 2.0 API to operate. > > > > This all kind of boils down to confusion over whether or not there is any > compatibility between 1.x and 2.0. If 2.0 is a clean break from 1.x, this > thread is pointless. Otherwise, we risk not getting the APIs we really > want. > > > > Does this help clarify the concern? > > > > One way to address that kind of concern would be to only support the 1.x > APIs via an optional different end point. > > We obviously don't have enough information at this point to evaluate how > much such a separation would take to implement nor how maintainable it > would be. > > But there at least seems to be a way to work through that issue if it comes > up. > I hope so. But until we have a new API fully implemented that we're content with, I don't think we should have any guarantees made about compatibility of the 1.x API, just in case we end up hitting an insurmountable issue.
