Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-08-05 Thread Jonathan Ellis
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:05, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >> The situation today is that network compatibility in trunk has been >> broken without us noticing for a while now -- in CASSANDRA-956 >> (according to git annotate) we changed ColumnFami

Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-08-05 Thread Gary Dusbabek
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:05, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > The situation today is that network compatibility in trunk has been > broken without us noticing for a while now -- in CASSANDRA-956 > (according to git annotate) we changed ColumnFamily serialization in a > non-backwards-compatible way. > 956

Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-08-05 Thread Jonathan Ellis
The situation today is that network compatibility in trunk has been broken without us noticing for a while now -- in CASSANDRA-956 (according to git annotate) we changed ColumnFamily serialization in a non-backwards-compatible way. Given the difficulty on the client side of mixing 0.6 and 0.7, mos

RE: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Eric Evans
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 12:35 -0500, Stu Hood wrote: > I feel like the next time we break network compatibility should be the > last time, aka, the release when we introduce a backwards compatible > RPC layer (Avro?), and implement support for dropping messages that a > node can't handle. Yeah, I th

Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Gary Dusbabek
I don't know of any, but I presume Jonathan does, else he wouldn't have brought it up. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 16:35, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > What would be the pros of breaking it for 0.7 now ? > I suppose you have something specific in mind that would break > compatibility ? > > On Thu, Jul 22

Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
What would be the pros of breaking it for 0.7 now ? I suppose you have something specific in mind that would break compatibility ? On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > I think this depends on how much value users place in rolling upgrades > (it's going to vary). > > My opinion

Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Gary Dusbabek
I think this depends on how much value users place in rolling upgrades (it's going to vary). My opinion is that we should be allowed to break it between major versions if required. Gary. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > How useful is this to insist on, given that 0.7 thrif

RE: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Stu Hood
rsday, July 22, 2010 12:35pm To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7 I feel like the next time we break network compatibility should be the last time, aka, the release when we introduce a backwards compatible RPC layer (Avro?), and implement support for droppi

RE: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Stu Hood
I feel like the next time we break network compatibility should be the last time, aka, the release when we introduce a backwards compatible RPC layer (Avro?), and implement support for dropping messages that a node can't handle. So I think we should probably try to preserve compatibility in 0.7.

Re: network compatibility from 0.6 to 0.7

2010-07-22 Thread Tupshin Harper
As long as network compatibility is in place, it is possible to incrementally upgrade a cluster by restricting thrift clients to only talk to the 0.6 nodes until half the cluster is upgraded and then modify them to talk to the 0.7 nodes. If networking compatibility breaks, there is no way to avoid