tez-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bikas Saha <bi...@hortonworks.com>
Subject RE: api compatibility within a minor release
Date Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:29:03 GMT
It would be good to understand why that private method is being used. It was marked private
because we did not want it to be used. So changing it to limited private kind of defeats the
purpose, right?

If we can understand what the use case is then we can try to make it work without using private
methods.

To be clear, this should not be considered a breaking change in the API since its not part
of the documented API.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Kelpe [mailto:akelpe@concurrentinc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 2:11 AM
To: dev@tez.apache.org
Subject: Re: api compatibility within a minor release

Thanks for the answer. We have a work-around for now. I am going to make that inventory and
submit a patch that changes the annotations from @Private to @LimitedPrivate.

From a semantic versioning point of view, I would still expect no breaking changes in a bug
fix release, but if the Tez community at large can work with that, we have to accept that,
I guess.

- André

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Hitesh Shah <hitesh@apache.org> wrote:

> Hello Andre,
>
> For the most part, @Private is considered internal implementation and 
> subject to change at any point. In this case, even more so as it is an 
> *Impl class.
>
> What we can do is try the following:
>     - Look at all the various @Private classes being used by Cascading.
>     - See which ones should not be used at all and which ones can be 
> considered to be a @LimitedPrivate for Cascading.
>     - For LimitedPrivate apis, we would then try to be a bit more 
> careful with respect to changing/breaking these APIs. I would probably 
> not say that they have will have the same guarantees as 
> @Public/@Stable but we can work with the Cascading community to handle 
> changes to these APIs in a workable manner on an ongoing basis.
>
> As for this API in question, for the short term fix, I guess a simple 
> approach might be to introduce a backward compatible API ( I believe 
> one which does not need the timeout param passed in )? Would you mind 
> filing a jira and hopefully provide a patch too?
>
> thanks
> — Hitesh
>
> On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:01 AM, Andre Kelpe <akelpe@concurrentinc.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have found a small API incompatibility in the Tez 0.6.2 release. 
> > The DAGClientTimelineImpl constructor got a new parameter for 
> > time-outs. This was not present in 0.6.1 and from a semantic 
> > versioning point of view,
> that
> > is problematic. I know that the class is marked with the @Private 
> > annotation, but it would be great if such incompatible things aren't 
> > introduced in a bug-fix release. It would be easier for downsteam
> projects,
> > if you just added a second constructor.
> >
> > Is that an oversight or are classes with the @Private annotation 
> > subject
> to
> > change and dowstream projects simply have to deal with it?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - André
> >
> > --
> > André Kelpe
> > andre@concurrentinc.com
> > http://concurrentinc.com
>
>


--
André Kelpe
andre@concurrentinc.com
http://concurrentinc.com
Mime
View raw message