accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Billie Rinaldi (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1000) support compare and set
Date Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:02:20 GMT


Billie Rinaldi commented on ACCUMULO-1000:

bq. One last thing, I am thinking of renaming putCondition() and putConditionAbsent() to putEqualityTest()
and putAbsenceTest().

I initially found Test to be more confusing than Condition.  What about ifExists(cf, cq, cv,
val) and ifAbsent(cf, cq, cv)?  That would provide a good semantic flow: cm.ifExists, cm.put.
 An alternative to ifExists could be ifMatches.  I confess I don't have a full grasp of the
use cases for this; would we ever want to test ifExists(cf, cq, cv)?

Regarding the absence test with non-visible keys, maybe we should just let the test pass.
 Maybe the conditional writer should only allow writing visibilities that can be seen by the
set of authorizations used for reading.  You could use the same conditions with different
authorizations to insert otherwise identical keys with different visibilities.
> support compare and set
> -----------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-1000
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: client, tserver
>            Reporter: Keith Turner
>            Assignee: Keith Turner
>             Fix For: 1.6.0
>         Attachments: ACCUMULO-1000-proposal-01.html, ACCUMULO-1000-proposal-01.txt
> Add support to mutation for compare and set operations.  This would allow user to specify
that a row must contain certain data for a mutation to be applied.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message