So the maven pom's still point to 1.0 as default no matter what version of
the client you point at. I've gotten around this by being very explicit:
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.hbase</groupId>
<artifactId>hbase-client</artifactId>
<version>${hbase.version}</version>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<groupId>org.apache.hadoop</groupId>
<artifactId>hadoop-core</artifactId>
</exclusion>
<exclusion>
<groupId>org.mortbay.jetty</groupId>
<artifactId>jetty</artifactId>
</exclusion>
<exclusion>
<groupId>com.sun.jdmk</groupId>
<artifactId>jmxtools</artifactId>
</exclusion>
<exclusion>
<groupId>com.sun.jmx</groupId>
<artifactId>jmxri</artifactId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.hadoop</groupId>
<artifactId>hadoop-common</artifactId>
<version>2.0.0-alpha</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
It's not awesome but it got me working.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Nicolas Liochon <nkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to test the hadoop2 maven release with ycsb.
>
> If I build hbase locally, with
> mvn clean install -DskipTests -Dhadoop.profile=2.0
> then I can compile ycsb, providing 0.95.1 as the hbase version.
> => Compilation & execution works.
>
> If I provide 0.95.0-hadoop2-SNAPSHOT (the version found in
> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/hbase,
> but there is a bunch of files with different dates there)
>
> Then it builds, but I have a failure on execution.
> Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
>
> org.apache.hadoop.net.NetUtils.getInputStream(Ljava/net/Socket;)Ljava/io/InputStream;
> at
>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcClient$Connection.setupIOstreams(RpcClient.java:814)
>
> When I dig with mvn dependency:tree, I see hadoop2 dependencies only, as
> expected.
>
> => Is that the version to use? If not, which one should I use, from which
> repo?
>
>
> As well, by default, we don't configure log4j, so we don't have anything on
> screen: log4j does not output to screen by default for security reasons (if
> the data is confidential). We should probably change this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Here is our second 0.95.1 release candidate. Should we put this out as
> > 0.95.1?
> >
> > Since 0.95.1 is "just" a "Development" Series release [1], lets keep the
> > vote period short. Please vote by this Tuesday, June 11th.
> >
> > The release artifacts may be downloaded from:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.95.1RC1/<
> > http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.95.1RC0/>
> >
> > Almost 200 issues have been closed since we put out 0.95.0 [2].
> >
> > All feedback is welcome. We'd be interested in getting comments on
> > everything from the packaging, layout, through documentation, UI, and of
> > course,
> > any bugs found. I deployed SNAPSHOTs to maven and would particularly
> like
> > to hear from downstream projects on whether our maven packaging is
> > palatable.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > St.Ack
> >
> > 1. http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.versioning
> > 2.
> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20HBASE%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%220.95.1%22%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Resolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
> >
>
