Ah, that makes more sense. I would be fine with bumping the htrace dependency to match the most recent version of Hadoop that we support and not doing a shim layer. We might want to check in with any users who are using the Accumulo+HDFS tracing to see if this would be a problem for them. I am not sure if anyone is using it or not.
Billie On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, my mistake. I thought it was 2.7 and later. Well, then I guess the > question is whether we should bump to 2.8, then. I'm not a fan of the shim > layer. I'd rather provide support for downstream packagers trying to > backport for HTrace3, if anybody ends up requiring that, than provide a > shim to preserve use of the older HTrace. > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:30 PM Billie Rinaldi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I'm in favor of bumping our Hadoop version to 2.7. We are already on the > > same htrace version as Hadoop 2.7. (The discussion in ACCUMULO-4171 is > > relevant to Hadoop 2.8 and later.) > > > > Billie > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thinking about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4171, > I'm > > of > > > the opinion that we should probably bump our Hadoop version to 2.7 and > > > HTrace version to what Hadoop is using, to keep them in sync. > > > > > > Does anybody disagree? > > > > > >
