That's a good point that the introduction of new request types for prepared statement and metadata introduced some incompatibility issues, and that's why I added a client/server version exchange so that client can make smart decisions about using these new methods or not (this is the approach used by the ODBC driver, where the new calls will be used only if server advertises 1.9.0 or newer). On Java side, direct users of DrillClient would have to check the version as well, a thing the JDBC driver doesn't. That said, the metadata change is not merged yet (and I will add the extra logic), which is not the case regarding prepared statement support.
Also, I verified that the old server doesn't drop the connection: it's actually dropping the request, and not responding to the client :( (best would be to return an error message to say unsupported). Laurent On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <sudhe...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Laurent, > > That's right; this was mentioned in the design document. > > I am piggybacking on previous changes that break the "newer clients talking > to older servers" compatibility. For example, as I understand, some > resolved sub-tasks of DRILL-4714 [1] *implicitly* break this compatibility; > say the "newer" API that was introduced is used by an application which is > talking to an older server. The older server drops the connection, unable > to handle the message. > > In DRILL-4280, there is an *explicit* break in that specific compatibility, > and the error message is much cleaner with a version mismatch message. The > difference is that the C++ client (unlike the Java client) checks for the > server version as well, which make the compatibility break more visible. > > I am not sure about the plan of action in general about this compatibility. > However, I could work around the issue by advertising clients' SASL > capability to the server. What do you think? > > Thank you, > Sudheesh > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4714 > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:49 PM, Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com> wrote: > > Just for clarity, DRILL-4280 is a breaking-protocol change, so is the plan > to defer this change to a later release, or to defer bringing back > compatibility between newer clients and older servers to a later release? > > Laurent > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Zelaine Fong <zf...@maprtech.com> wrote: > > Oops, mistake in my notes. For the second item, I meant DRILL-4280, not > DRILL-1950. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Zelaine Fong <zf...@maprtech.com> wrote: > > Attendees: Paul, Padma, Sorabh, Boaz, Sudheesh, Vitalii, Roman, Dave O, > Arina, Laurent, Kunal, Zelaine > > I had to leave the hangout at 10:30, so my notes only cover the > > discussion > > up till then. > > 1) Variable width decimal support - Dave O > > Currently Drill only supports fixed width byte array storage of decimals. > Dave has submitted a pull request for DRILL-4834 to add support for > > storing > > decimals with variable width byte arrays. Eventually, variable width can > replace fixed width, but the pull request doesn't cover that. Dave would > like someone in the community to review his pull request. > > 2) 1.9 release - Sudheesh > > Sudheesh is collecting pull requests for the release. Some have been > reviewed and are waiting to be merged. Sudheesh plans to commit a batch > this Wed and another this Friday. He's targeting having a release > candidate build available next Monday. > > Laurent asked about Sudheesh's pull request for DRILL-1950. He asked > whether thought had been given to supporting newer Drill clients with > > older > > Drill servers. Sudheesh indicated that doing this would entail a > > breaking > > change in the protocol, and the plan was to defer doing this for a later > release where we may want to make other breaking changes like this. >
