Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
From: keith-turner <git@git.apache.org>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
References: <git-pr-145-accumulo@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-145-accumulo@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] accumulo issue #145: ACCUMULO-4376 add KeyBuilder
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20160901155909.14C04DFD9F@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Thu,  1 Sep 2016 15:59:09 +0000 (UTC)
archived-at: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 15:59:11 -0000

Github user keith-turner commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/145
  
    I agree w/ @dhutchis and would really like the ability to mix types.  For example a binary row and string column is a common usage pattern.   The builder pattern supports this usage pattern really well.   
    
    I would suggest using `family` instead of `columnFamily`, `qualifier` instead `columnQualifier`, and `visibility` instead of `columnVisibility` for the methods names.  IMO using these names will make the code users write shorter and less redundant w/o any loss in readability.  
    
    I would suggest making the builder class package private and adding a `newBuilder()` method to Key that returns the first interface.
    
    Below is an example of code using all of these suggestions.
    
    ```java
        byte r[];
        String f;
        Text q;
        
        Key k = Key.newBuilder().row(r).family(f).qualifier(q).build();
    ```


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---