-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
Backport "HBASE-26782 Minor code cleanup in and around RpcExecutor" to branch-2 #4173
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Backport "HBASE-26782 Minor code cleanup in and around RpcExecutor" to branch-2 #4173
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Bharath Vissapragada <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Duo Zhang <[email protected]>
|
@stoty can you confirm that this change is not problematic for Phoenix? |
|
Technically, Phoenix doesn't support branch-2, only branch-2.[1..4] |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Interesting. For branch-2.4 we're compiling phoenix with Hbase 2.4.1, so we don't see the difference at compile time. For 2.5 and later, we're going to have to rename our internal dispatch() method, and add a dispatch() wrapper to the compatibility shim that handles the API differences betweeen the HBase versions, instead of overriding it as we do now. All in all, Phoenix can handle the API change in HBase 2.5+ . |
Is that for just this change to RpcExecutor, or are you looking at changes to RpcScheduler#dispatch ? Thanks @stoty . |
|
I've only looked at RPCExecutor#dispatch() . |
|
But RpcScheduler#dispatch can be handled the same way. |
|
I wouldn't want to make any interface compatibility changes to IA.LimitedPrivate classes on a patch release, only minor release. Thank again @stoty for taking the time! |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
Okay, so here's a problem that confused me through this. |
Signed-off-by: Bharath Vissapragada [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Duo Zhang [email protected]