Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of david.medinets@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:31:58 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAOiJXP7yNzfE8wg3tJ02fD+mKZ7W93bTHJfq0XYg2EAfysKSmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Can Mutation.readFields return Mutation instead fo void?
From: David Medinets <david.medinets@gmail.com>
To: accumulo-dev <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I am looking to simplify some. Here is the code I am looking at:

  private Mutation cloneMutation(Mutation m) throws IOException {
    ByteArrayOutputStream baos = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
    DataOutputStream dos = new DataOutputStream(baos);
    m.write(dos);
    dos.close();

    ByteArrayInputStream bais = new ByteArrayInputStream(baos.toByteArray());
    DataInputStream dis = new DataInputStream(bais);

    Mutation m = new Mutation();
    m.readFields(dis);
    return m;
  }

The readFields method in Mutation starts like this:

  @Override
  public void readFields(DataInput in) throws IOException {
  ...
  }

It seems harmless to have readFields return 'this' instead fo void.
Any objections?

On a slightly different note, it seems like readFields should actually
be a constructor. Because it's job is to set the row, data, value, and
entries. Just as the other constructors do. Any objections to
converting it to a constructor.