accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ACCUMULO-3176
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:32:27 GMT
Sure David. All of the comments on ACCUMULO-3176 prior to Christopher's
assertion go over the issue, where it impacts operations, and a current
mitigation.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3176

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM, David Medinets <david.medinets@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sean, can you please provide a pointer to the discussion of race
> conditions in property updates?
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > This change alters our public API while not solving the underlying issue
> of
> > race conditions in property updates.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Committers, this is a consensus vote on whether or not to include
> Jenna's
> >> patch for ACCUMULO-3176 to the 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT (master) branch.
> >>
> >> This patch improves the table creation API with the introduction of a
> >> NewTableConfiguration object (similar to the pattern for
> >> BatchWriterConfig), which allows us to be flexible on improving table
> >> creation options in the future without creating many overloaded methods
> (as
> >> the table creation API has been plagued by in the past). The main goal
> of
> >> the patch is to allow table properties to be set on a table at the time
> of
> >> creation, before any tablets are assigned, but it also lays the
> foundation
> >> for future table creation improvements. Creating initial table
> properties
> >> was already present in the RPC calls, but not exposed in the API. This
> can
> >> support a number of use cases.
> >>
> >> Since an objection was raised by Sean Busbey (and a veto expected), I've
> >> initiated this vote in lieu of applying the patch under lazy consensus
> so
> >> that any veto votes can be justified and addressed here.
> >>
> >> Note: there are a few bugs in the Mock implementation of this that I've
> >> fixed, as well as some minor deprecation warnings and javadoc
> improvements
> >> I'm adding, please apply your vote under the assumption that those will
> be
> >> fixed before it will be applied.
> >>
> >> Please vote in accordance with the bylaws for consensus voting.
> >> My vote is +1.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>



-- 
Sean

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