Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52C5C110.7010705@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGHyZ6JsKn6AuTpD5A6FFbgF1KY1fshGTvbe7rkhnVyRA5Sc+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGUtCHrfdwPUYkNZCLaccrvRQqi775nC6t1tCFmFSrDMrX4P1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL5zq9bgoXdqtRiy0iCThTV8FYt0xOgXAfMOGdVCeQJThbuQVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGUtCHrDJxhQQyMDAYhnyabu_H30giMBh=pnVSOFCRdYNTt2ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<52C5C110.7010705@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 20:15:10 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAL5zq9ZgrdjuRps2MkUqwqMdF00dQYxUOByRJsX8h3MD-4iiJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] API changes to provide resource cleanup
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/2/14, 2:16 PM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Keith. Thanks for summarizing, Sean.
>>>
>>> I also favor option #2 for all existing versions, up through 1.6.0.
>>>
>>
>> What are your thoughts on reverting close() in 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?
>
>
> IMO, I think a full revert makes sense, and then we can fully hash out the
> new API without influence of what was already there. If we end up
> "re-adding" the changes, so be it, but it seems very unlikely that we'd end
> up with the same final approach.
[snip]

+1