> > > If hadoop shaded its artifacts so no leakage whether an HDFS or YARN > context (or Spark -- Spark2 is pb2.5.0) and downstreamers made use of our > shaded artifacts everywhere then we could avoid this effort. > > Some form of isolation should show up in hadoop3 before it ships. My guess > is that it unlikely we'd get the backport in an hadoop2 even though hadoop > has tradtionally been 'relaxed' when it comes to compat across versions. An > hbase2 that required hadoop3 or even a 2.9 or 2.10 would be constraining. > > FWIW, we can still declare that only supported HBase client is the shaded client, and the non-shaded server / client will not work after 2.0. It should still allow MR jobs to work even without Hadoop's shading.
> The above is a big if and a dependency on another project's delivery. > Agreed. > > Meanwhile the offheap project need a more modern protobuf yesterday so they > can make progress. > > I suggest we commit this patch that lets us own when and on what we can > release. If the lay of the land changes substantially before we ship > hbase2, I promise to undo this patch. > Ok, let's not block the offheap effort and see whether the dev pain is worth it. > > What do you think Enis, > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if we could and they deliver, what about all of the already > deployed > > > 2.x? Or 3.x? Would a change like this get into 3? Or would it be pushed > > to > > > 4? So we wait until Hadoop 3 or maybe 4 is released *and* GA *and* out > > > there so long that telling people to get off 2 is is finally ok before > > > moving up to PB3 or getting the off heaping goodness? No, let's get > this > > > work in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Is PB only coming via HDFS client or there are other usages that > > pollute > > > > our classpath? We are doing all this gymnastics just because upstream > > > does > > > > not do shading is frustrating. Any idea for how likely we can push > > shaded > > > > hdfs to Hadoop? Should we focus on that instead rather than working > > > around > > > > the problem? > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The precommit job uses compile-protobuf profile for verification. > > The > > > > > > absence of compile-protobuf profile in hbase-protocol-shaded > module > > > > means > > > > > > precommit job would only invoke the existing compile-protobuf > > profile > > > > > > in hbase-protocol > > > > > > module. > > > > > > > > > > > w.r.t. path, when two protoc executables (corresponding to 2.5 and > > 3.x, > > > > > > respectively) are available, would maven know which one to pick > for > > > > > > the hbase-protocol and hbase-protocol-shaded modules ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the former, right, nothing changed. > > > > > > > > > > On the latter, it is a contrivance, a problem we do not have. The > > build > > > > > doesn't have to pick between pb 2.5 vs pb 3.1. We don't run protoc > as > > > > part > > > > > of our build. It is done apart from the build by the developer and > > > their > > > > > results are then checked-in. That continues as it was post-patch. > We > > > just > > > > > do 3.1 now instead of 2.5. > > > > > > > > > > I'll check in a bit of doc as part of this commit that hopefully > will > > > > help > > > > > make this all clearer. > > > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like compile-protobuf profile is not in > > > > > > > hbase-protocol-shaded/pom.xml > > > > > > > > (in HBASE-16264 branch) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I don't get what you are saying here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (The target in the new module is generate-sources. See the > > included > > > > > > README. > > > > > > > This step does more work now more than just generating protocs, > > > hence > > > > > new > > > > > > > profile name.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems precommit jobs should pass with the current formation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you stating that this patch is likely to build? (Yes, the > > > patch I > > > > > > > submitted builds). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the future, if we add another profile for compiling proto3 > > > > files, > > > > > we > > > > > > > > need to specify the path to proto3 compiler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what you are asking. Why do we have to specify > > > 'paths'? > > > > We > > > > > > > don't have to currently (See the plugin we use generating > protos > > > now > > > > > from > > > > > > > hadoop). Maybe you are trying to distinguish the production of > > > > > > protobuf2.5 > > > > > > > vs 3.1 protos but these are isolated by module.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I said I'd commit this morning but let me wait a while. There > may > > > be > > > > > some > > > > > > > more questions/objections and I'd like to have a clean build up > > on > > > > > > jenkins > > > > > > > here [1] before I commit (jenkins is being ornery). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-16264/jdk=JDK%201.8%20( > > > > > > > latest),label=yahoo-not-h2/28/console > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Service Unavailable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The server is temporarily unable to service your > > > > > > > request due to maintenance downtime or capacity > > > > > > > problems. Please try again later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The protoc generated files (such as MasterProtos) are > checked > > > > into > > > > > > > source > > > > > > > > > repo, right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we need proto3 on the precommit image(s) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:18 AM, 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Then I think we need to file an issue to change the protoc > > > > version > > > > > > > > >> installed in the precommit docker file to 3.x before the > > > merge. > > > > > > > > Otherwise > > > > > > > > >> the precommit build for protoc check maybe broken after > the > > > > > merge... > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2016-10-03 1:18 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell < > > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I have 2.5 and 3.0 installed as /opt/protobuf-<version>, > > and > > > > > have > > > > > > > bash > > > > > > > > >> > scripts that add the appropriate version's bin directory > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > path. > > > > > > > > >> Not > > > > > > > > >> > particularly onerous as I also have to switch between > > > required > > > > > JDK > > > > > > > > >> > versions, so the scripts also set JAVA_HOME at and add > JDK > > > bin > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> path > > > > > > > > >> > for the required JDK for the build. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Unlike with the scala compiler, which is after all JVM > > > > bytecode > > > > > > at a > > > > > > > > >> > fundamental level, I don't think maven automation for > > > > automatic > > > > > > > > download > > > > > > > > >> > and execution is possible. protoc is a native binary. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:30 PM, 张铎 < > palomino...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Do we need to install protoc 3.0 manully before > building > > > > HBase > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > maven > > > > > > > > >> > > protobuf plugin will automatically download the protoc > > > > > compiler? > > > > > > > > >> Maybe we > > > > > > > > >> > > need to install protoc 3.0 in the precommit docker > file. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > 2016-10-02 14:20 GMT+08:00 张铎 <palomino...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> 2016-10-02 0:50 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 7:20 AM, 张铎 < > > > > palomino...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> Can we setup a compatibility checker job in > jenkins? > > > > Start > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> > >>> minicluster in > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> one process, and use a client in another process to > > > > > > communicate > > > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > > > >> > it. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> The version of the client should be >= 0.98 and <= > > the > > > > > > version > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> minicluster. Of course we need to design the > testing > > > code > > > > > > > > >> carefully to > > > > > > > > >> > >>> make > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> sure that we have tested all the cases. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> +1. We need this up and running before we put out an > > > > > > > hbase-2.0.0. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > >> > know > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Matteo does this test manually on a regular basis > but > > a > > > > > > > > >> formalization > > > > > > > > >> > >>> would > > > > > > > > >> > >>> help. I can add an exercise of Coprocessor > Endpoints. > > I > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> > is on > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Dima's list of TODOs but will let him speak for > > himself. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> And also I think we should make sure that no proto3 > > > only > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> introduced in our proto files until branch-1 is > dead. > > > > > Maybe a > > > > > > > > >> > precommit > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> check? > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> I think you mean wire-format breaking changes? > Agree. > > > We > > > > > have > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > >> PB3 > > > > > > > > >> > set > > > > > > > > >> > >>> to 2.5 compat mode and yes, we can't move on from > this > > > > until > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > >>> place where we can say no to 2.5 clients. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >> Yes, for example, pb2.5 does not support map so we > > should > > > > not > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > >> map in > > > > > > > > >> > >> our proto files. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Making use of PB3isms cannot be avoided. PB3.1 adds > a > > > > native > > > > > > > > >> > replacement > > > > > > > > >> > >>> for our HBaseZeroCopyByteString/ByteStringer hack. > It > > > > also > > > > > > adds > > > > > > > > >> > 'unsafe' > > > > > > > > >> > >>> methods that we need to exploit if we are to keep > our > > > > > > read/write > > > > > > > > >> paths > > > > > > > > >> > >>> offheap. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> St.Ack > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> Thanks. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> 2016-10-01 11:55 GMT+08:00 Sean Busbey < > > > > > bus...@cloudera.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> have we experimentally confirmed that wire > > > compatibility > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> maintained? I saw one mention of expecting wire > > > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> fine, but nothing with someone using e.g. the > > > > clusterdock > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> something to mix servers / clients or do > > replication. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Stack < > > > > st...@duboce.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I intend to do a mass commit late this weekend > that > > > > moves > > > > > > us > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> to a > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> shaded > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protobuf-3.1.0, either Sunday night or Monday > > > morning. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> If objection, please speak up or if need more > time > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> consideration/review, just shout. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I want to merge the branch HBASE-16264 into > master > > > (it > > > > is > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > >> > >>> here > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> up > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> on jenkins https://builds.apache.org/view > > > > > > > > >> /H-L/view/HBase/job/HBASE- > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> 16264/). > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> The branch at HBASE-16264 has three significant > > > > > > > bodies-of-work > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> unfortunately are tangled and can only go in of a > > > > piece. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16264 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16264 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> The > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> shading of our protobuf usage so we can upgrade > > > and/or > > > > > run > > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> patched > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protobuf WITHOUT breaking REST, Spark, and in > > > > particular, > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Coprocessor > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Endpoints. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16567 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16567 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> A > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> move > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> up on to (shaded) protobuf-3.1.0 > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * HBASE-16741 <https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > jira/browse/HBASE-16741 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> An > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> amendment of our generate protobufs step to > include > > > > > shading > > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> bundling > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> of protobuf src (with a means of calling a patch > > srcs > > > > > hook) > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Together we're talking about 40MB of change > mostly > > > made > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >>> movement > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> of > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> generated files or the application of a pattern > > that > > > > > alters > > > > > > > > >> where we > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> get > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> imports from. When done, you should notice no > > > > difference > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > > > >> > >>> be > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> able > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> to go about your business as per usual. Upside is > > > that > > > > we > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >>> able > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> to > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> avoid coming onheap doing protobuf > > > > > > marshalling/unmarshalling > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> protobuf > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> 2.5.0 requires. Downside is that we repeat a good > > > > portion > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> internal > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> protos, once non-shaded so Coprocessor Endpoints > > can > > > > keep > > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> then > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> again as shaded for internal use. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> I provide some more overview below on the > changes. > > > See > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> shading > > > > > > > > >> > >>> doc > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> here: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > > > > > > 1H4NgLXQ9Y9KejwobddCqaVME > > > > > > > > >> DCGby > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> DcXtdF5iAfDIEk/edit# > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> for more detail (Patches are up on review board > -- > > > > except > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> latest > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> HBASE-16264 which is too big for JIRA and RB). I > am > > > > > > currently > > > > > > > > >> > >>> working > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> on > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> a > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> devs chapter for the book on protobuf going > forward > > > > that > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> > >>> as > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> part > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> of this patch. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> St.Ack > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Items of note: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * Two new modules; one named > hbase-protocol-shaded > > > that > > > > > is > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > >> by > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> hbase > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> core. It has in it a shaded (and later patched) > > > > protobuf. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >> other > > > > > > > > >> > >>> new > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> module is hbase-endpoint which goes after > > > hbase-server > > > > > and > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > >> those > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> bundled endpoints that I was able to break out of > > > core > > > > > > (there > > > > > > > > >> are a > > > > > > > > >> > >>> few > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> that are hopelessly entangled that need to be > > undone > > > as > > > > > > CPEPs > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> fortunately belong in core: Auth, Access, > > MultiRow). > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> * I've tested running a branch-1 CPEP against a > > > master > > > > > with > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> patches > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> in place and stuff like ACL (A CPEP) run from the > > > > > branch-1 > > > > > > > > shell > > > > > > > > >> > >>> work > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> against the branch-2 server. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Stack < > > > > > st...@duboce.net> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> This project goes on. I updated HBASE-1563 > "Shade > > > > > > protobuf" > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> > >>> some > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> doc > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> on a final approach. We need to be able to refer > > to > > > > both > > > > > > > > shaded > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> non-shaded protobuf so we can support sending > HDFS > > > > > > > old-school > > > > > > > > pb > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Messages > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> but also so Coprocessor Endpoints keep working > > > though > > > > > > > > internally > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> protobufs > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> have been relocated. Funny you should ask, but > > yes, > > > > > there > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> some > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> downsides (as predicted by contributors on the > > > JIRA). > > > > > I'd > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> interested > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> to > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> hear if they are too burdensome. In particular, > > your > > > > IDE > > > > > > > > >> experience > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> gets a > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> little convoluted as you will need to add to > your > > > > build > > > > > > > path, > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> jar > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> with > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> the relocated pbs. A pain. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> St.Ack > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Stack < > > > > > st...@duboce.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Sean Busbey < > > > > > > > > >> bus...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Stack < > > > > > > st...@duboce.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> On an initial pass, the only difficult part > > seems > > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> interaction > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> with > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> HDFS in asyncwal (might just pull in the HDFS > > > > > > messages). > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> I have some idea how we can make this work > > either > > > by > > > > > > > pushing > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> asyncwal > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> upstream to HDFS or through some maven tricks, > > > > > depending > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> how > > > > > > > > >> > >>> much > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> time we have. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Maven tricks? Tell us more. Here or drop a note > > up > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> issue. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks Sean, > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> St.Ack > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> -- > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> busbey > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > >
