Thanks, Andrew. I filed PHOENIX-1569 as well.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback James. I filed HBASE-12787 in response. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:49 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> bq. How many versions of HBase >= 0.98.10 do you think would need to >> be binary compatible with 4.2.2? >> >> Good question. Do you have an opinion? We have a compatibility check >> that we do on first connection to a cluster. Perhaps we can add a >> check of Phoenix server version vs HBase server version to detect a >> "breakage" scenario? In this case, we'd require the server-side >> Phoenix version to be bumped up (maybe do this in 4.4?). We can doc it >> as well, but it's been my experience that folks just don't read this. >> >> So perhaps have the reflection in place in HBase long enough for us to >> get 4.4 out? >> >> Thanks for asking! >> >> James >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Purtell >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > It would be a binary compatibility break unless we detect by reflection >> that it's an older factory missing the new 'create' method and therefore >> call the old one. >> > >> > We could add that. >> > >> > How many versions of HBase >= 0.98.10 do you think would need to be >> binary compatible with 4.2.2? >> > >> > >> >> On Dec 30, 2014, at 3:23 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Would our 4.2.2 binaries continue to work with releases of HBase >> >> containing this change? >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Andrew, >> >>> >> >>> Once HBASE-12028 is committed it should be easy enough to make the >> changes >> >>> in Phoenix to be able to compile with HBase versions pre or post >> >>> HBASE-12028. But we need a PHOENIX issue for that. >> >>> >> >>> We should also make Abortable a LimitedPrivate it seems. >> >>> >> >>> Enis >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> [email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi Phoenix, >> >>>> >> >>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12028 >> >>>> >> >>>> The proposed change if committed into 0.98 branch would introduce a >> new >> >>>> 'create' method into the RpcSchedulerFactory interface that receives >> an >> >>>> Abortable as an additional parameter. Thus, the factory can pass this >> on to >> >>>> schedulers and workers and if something terrible happens in or to a >> RPC >> >>>> handler they can trigger a server abort. Due to a design oversight we >> don't >> >>>> otherwise have this capability. In my opinion it is important to fix >> this >> >>>> oversight. (Phoenix can also potentially make use of the Abortable for >> >>>> fatal issues involving indexes.) Otherwise RPC handlers can silently >> >>>> terminate upon receiving an unhandled throwable, potentially leaving >> behind >> >>>> bad state, certainly impacting performance and availability. However >> >>>> because RpcSchedulerFactory is an interface any implementor will not >> >>>> compile after this change, until updated. >> >>>> >> >>>> HBase could include this change in the next 0.98 release or not. >> Please >> >>>> advise. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
