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 17:57:45 GMT
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/26/14, 9:33 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> 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 it was needless as you claim, why was it added in the first place as a
> public method?
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>   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?
>>
>
> I don't understand your question, so I'll restate my concern: the only
> implementation I can make that leverages MiniAccumuloC* is by extending
> MiniAccumuloC*Impl.
>

Can you give an example of what you are thinking of? I don't understand you
viewpoint either

As long as we preserve the correct signatures on the public methods in
o.a.a.minicluster, we can make any changes we like to the implementation of
those methods.   The implementation of those methods happen to use classes
in o.a.a.minicluster.impl.  No classes from  o.a.a.minicluster.impl should
leak through the public methods in o.a.a.minicluster.  I was asking if
there was leakage there.



>
> Talking to John, he did present the possibility that MACI could be made
> into a common base, the current impl lifted to a new impl that isn't tied
> to specific details, and then that *should* work.
>

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