accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] MiniAccumuloCluster goals and approach
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:33:46 GMT
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/26/14, 9:23 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> That's my irk with it. The changes we made "hide" things for no other
>>> >purpose than saying "we hid them". The next variant of a MAC is going to
>>> >have to re-architect the entire thing anyways (I'm doing this right now
>>> and
>>> >I'm overhauling it).
>>> >
>>>
>> There is a purpose.  Whats an alternative solution to the addition of
>> "public List<LogWriter> getLogWriters()" to the MAC API?
>>
>
> Personally, I wouldn't have really cared if such a method was added to its
> API.


Why not?  It needlessly exposes a MAC implementation detail.  Java 7 offers
a much better way to handle this situation and makes the need for these
threads go away. As I said flushing the logs could be offered in the API in
a much nicer way.  Thats one solution.


>
>
>  If you want to re-write MAC all you have to support is the interface in
>> minicluster, you are free to throw everything in minicluster.impl away.
>>
>>
>>
> No, not with the "interface" explicitly referencing MiniAccumuloC*Impl
> internally, I can't. I do not see any way I can throw away the existing
> impl given the API wrapper. Am I missing something?
>

Does MiniAccumuloC*Impl leak from the minicluster package in some way?

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message