accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: Pros and Cons of moving SKVI to public API
Date Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:15:24 GMT
We do have the opportunity to move to a new improved API, if somebody were
to put time into it. I guess that's true whether we put this in the public
API officially or not. I think maybe the hardest part is that we don't
really want to put just the interface in the API... but it exists in a
package with a bunch of other classes which probably shouldn't be public
API. So, some thought needs to be put into *how* we're going to do it, too.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM William Slacum <> wrote:

> It should be public API. It's one of the core reasons for choosing Accumulo
> over a similar project like HBase or Cassandra. Allegedly, Jeff "Mean Gene"
> Dean said we got the concept correct as well :)
> Personally I hate the current API from a usability standpoint (ie, the
> generic types are useless and already encoded in the name, it needlessly
> diverges from the standard java Iterator calling standards), but it's a
> strong, identifying feature we have.
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
> > Accumulators,
> >
> > What are the pros and cons that you can see for moving the
> > SortedKeyValueIterator into the public API?
> >
> > Right now, I think there's still some need for improvement in the
> Iterator
> > API, and many of the iterators may not be stable enough to really
> recommend
> > people use without some serious caveats (because we may not be able to
> keep
> > their API stable very easily). So, there's a con.
> >
> > In the pros side, iterators are a core feature of Accumulo, and nearly
> all
> > of Accumulo's distributed processing capabilities are dependent upon
> them.
> > It is reasonable to expect users to take advantage of them, and we've at
> > least tried to be cautious about changing the iterators in incompatible
> > ways, even if they aren't in the public API.
> >
> > Recently, this came up when we stripped out all the non-public API
> javadocs
> > from the website. (reported by Dan Blum on the user list on March 4th:
> >
> >
> > )
> >
> > What would it take for us to feel comfortable moving them to the public
> > API? Do we need a better interface first, or should we isolate the other
> > iterators into another package (some of that has already been done), or
> > should we wait for a proper public API package (2.0?) to provide this
> > interface in?
> >

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