accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: Generic Supertypes/Pluggable Client
Date Sat, 06 Jul 2013 04:11:09 GMT liked your message with Boxer. On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:29 PM, Christopher
 wrote:On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Ed Kohlwey  wrote:>> It would be very nice if
the types you mentioned were more consistent>> across the API. Personally I would like
to see byte[] and ByteSequence>> fully supported across all of the APIs related to reading
and writing data.>> We added support for byte[] to mutation in 1.5. Thinking back, we
should>> have added support for ByteSequence too.>>> +1. If we make everything
tie back to ByteSequence and make the> serialization/deserialization logic pluggable, then
everyone will be happy.> Do you have any ideas based on the sketch I included that would
help make> this better for all types, not just byte[]?I'd be very cautious about making
*everything* tie back toByteSequence. Some things, are more constrained than bytes... such
asColumn Visibilities, which we assume are human-readable strings, andit'd be more appropriate
to tie it back to CharSequence thanByteSequence in the API, even though internally it's just
bytes. Thebytes we store for this should really be UTF8-encoded characters.Table names are
another place where we use Text sometimes in the APIto refer to something containing a String/CharSequence
and cannot bearbitrary bytes... though I don't think your proposal affects thatpart of the
API as much.--Christopher L Tubbs II     
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message