On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:55 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 12/6/17 12:17 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Maybe a difference in interpretation: > >>> > >>> I was seeing 1a as being source-compatible still. My assumption was > that > >>> "Deprecate ClientConfiguration" meant that it would remain in the > >>> codebase > >>> -- "replace" as in "replace expected user invocation", not removal of > the > >>> old ClientConfiguration and addition of a new ClientConfig class. > >> > >> Ok, if we deprecate ClientConfiguration, leave it in 2.0, and drop the > >> extends from ClientConfiguration in 2.0. Then I am not sure what the > >> benefit of introducing the new ClientConfig type is? > > > > > > I read this as leaving the extends in ClientConfiguration and dropping > that > > in the new ClientConfig. Agree, I wouldn't see the point in changing the > > parent class of ClientConfiguration (as that would break things). > > > I don't think we can leave ClientConfiguration as deprecated and > extending commons config in Accumulo 2.0. This leaves commons config > 1 in the API. > > Personally I am not in favor of dropping ClientConfiguration in 2.0, > which is why I was in favor option b. > In the absence of any further input from others, I'll follow along with whatever you and Josh can agree on. Although I lean towards option 1.a, I don't feel strongly about either option. We can also do a vote if neither of you is able (or willing) to convince the other of your preference.
