phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Istvan Toth <st...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Remove Omid and Tephra server component from Phoenix distribution
Date Sat, 12 Sep 2020 05:31:22 GMT
Thanks for the quick responses Josh and Rajeshbabu!

Yes, this would mean that to actually use Omid/Tephra, you need to install
them separately, and launch their daemons from their respective install
locations.
(and they need to be the specific versions bundled into the phoenix jars)

The scope of my current proposal does not affect the HBase classpath, as
we'd still package all the Omid/Tephra server side code into the server
JAR, (and all the client side code into the client JAR).

I know that I have proposed the overlay idea (for PQS) some time ago, but I
currently feel that it would add unnecessary complexity and be error-prone,
especially for Omid and Tephra that are not packaged as uberjars, and
consist of a lot of JARs and dependencies.

I haven't actually heard of any user actively using transaction support (in
the lists, or JIRA), so the impact on existing users should be low.

Actually decoupling the Omid and Tephra specific code into separate
modules, and making their installation optional would be a bigger task, and
would have both advantages and challenges.
Do you think that we should explore that option now Josh ?

regards
Istvan

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 7:38 PM rajeshbabu@apache.org <
chrajeshbabu32@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for the change as the Omid and Tephra transaction  services  don't have
> any  dependency on Phoenix and they should also directly serve HBase level
> cross row/table transactions as well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:27 PM Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sounds reasonable to me.
> >
> > We have the same kind of thing going since phoenix-queryserver was moved
> > out to its own repository. Maybe we can come up with some conventions as
> > to how we "overlay" things so that Omid, PQS, and Tephra can all have
> > some semblance of familiarity?
> >
> > I think that would mean, daemons and such that Omid/Tephra need to run
> > would be launched via an assembly in their respective code-bases. I
> > guess the difference to PQS is that each of them have jar(s) that would
> > also need to be added to the HBase RegionServer classpath?
> >
> > On 9/11/20 11:09 AM, Istvan Toth wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > We are currently shipping startup scripts and [some of] the JARs
> > necessary
> > > to start the server components of Omid and Tephra in the Phoenix
> > > distribution.
> > >
> > > The JARs for OMID are manually enumerated to be added to the
> > distribution,
> > > and have to be updated whenever the Omid dependencies change (and are
> > > currently not enough to start Omid TSO), while the JARS for Tephra seem
> > to
> > > be completely missing.
> > >
> > > I propose that we remove both from the Phoenix assembly, and instead
> > > document (link to the corresponding project documentations) how to
> > install
> > > and run the server components for Omid and Tephra.
> > >
> > > This would free us from the burden of having to duplicate and maintain
> > the
> > > Omid and Tephra server runtimes in our distribution, and save our users
> > the
> > > frustration when we fail to do so.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
> > >
> > > best regards
> > > Istvan
> > >
> >
>


-- 
*István Tóth* | Staff Software Engineer
stoty@cloudera.com <https://www.cloudera.com>
[image: Cloudera] <https://www.cloudera.com/>
[image: Cloudera on Twitter] <https://twitter.com/cloudera> [image:
Cloudera on Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/cloudera> [image: Cloudera
on LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudera>
<https://www.cloudera.com/>
------------------------------

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message