(+dev@drill.apache.org bcc u...@drill.apache.org) other options: - let the user decide between plain auth and sasl auth - let the client could send a flag to announce support for SASL auth, and do not send the credentials in the first handshake. An old server would then send AUTH_FAILED (and drop the connection) but the client would retry with the plain credentials, whereas the new server would send AUTH_REQUIRED as expected.
Laurent Laurent On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Sudheesh Katkam <sudhe...@apache.org> wrote: > I am going to update the pull request so that both will be "ok". > > This implies that username/password credentials will be sent to the server > twice, during handshake and during SASL exchange. And sending credentials > through handshake will be deprecated (and removed in a future release). > > Thank you, > Sudheesh > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com> wrote: > > > Since I'm not that close to DRILL-4280, I wanted to clarify expectation: > > > > > > <1.9 Client <==> 1.9 Server (ok) > > 1.9 Client <==> <1.9 Server (fails) > > > > Is that correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jacques Nadeau > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > > > 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. > > > > > >
