phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Taylor (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (PHOENIX-1199) Determine options for Phoenix 4.1.x supporting CDH 5.1
Date Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:02:11 GMT


James Taylor commented on PHOENIX-1199:

It's certainly open to debate going forward, but we've never verified/confirmed this in the
past. I think it's difficult solely due to lack of control from our POV. What do you think,

But it's definitely a goal to get Russell and others unstuck by doing this:
bq. The issue, I think, is that the phoenix-pig module was only compiled against the hadoop1
profile. Instead, it should be compiled against both, with separate jars built and placed
in the phoenix-4.1.0-bin/hadoop1 and phoenix-4.1.0-bin/hadoop2 directories (instead of phoenix-4.1.0-bin/common).
In that case, you'd simply use the hadoop2/phoenix-pig jar with CDH 5.1. This is likely the
case with the phoenix-flume module as well. If someone wants to volunteer to confirm that,
it'd be much appreciated.

> Determine options for Phoenix 4.1.x supporting CDH 5.1 
> -------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: PHOENIX-1199
>                 URL:
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 4.1
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>         Attachments: PHOENIX-1199.patch
> Let's figure out the most painless way of supporting CDH 5.1 for Phoenix 4.1. I'm not
as concerned with compile-time, as we know we have a dependency on HBase 0.98.4 (to fix a
deadlock issue). However, this is not a runtime dependency. But the lack of the ServerName
is going to be a problem at runtime. Are there other problematic class references?
> What are our options? Should we try to get something in the next HBase release that'll
help (making constructors public, for example)? Or can we not use ServerName in the Phoenix
code? Are the old HBase APIs available still? You all would know better than me.
> Or should we just wait for the next patch release from Cloudera and ask nicely that they
make it more compatible? smile :-)
> [~apurtell], [~stack], [~lhofhansl], [~jesse_yates]

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message