accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4376) Introduce a Builders for "data" classes
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:46:20 GMT


Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-4376:

bq. I like this idea, and it was something I was thinking about doing for the 2.0.0 API changes.
It might be best if we coordinate this a bit, and decide what the next version of Accumulo
will be, with these changes. I'd hate to add them in the old API, only to provide replacements
in 2.0.

It sounds like you haven't actually done anything yet for the 2.0 API re-write you've been
working on. Why would we have to have replacements for it in 2.0? How would we future proof
something that doesn't exist yet? :)

I just don't want this to get bogged down in 2.0 hypotheticals. If there are concrete things
we can do to make sure this will fit well into your redesign, please do share that info.

> Introduce a Builders for "data" classes
> ---------------------------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-4376
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: client
>            Reporter: Josh Elser
>             Fix For: 1.9.0
> In looking at ACCUMULO-4375, I was a little frustrated at how we have 3x constructors
than Key really provides just to support {{byte[]}}, {{Text}}, and {{CharSequence}} arguments.
Additionally, the {{copy}} argument forces the user to use the most specific (most arguments)
constructor if they want to avoid the copy. This makes constructing a Key from just a row
while avoiding a copy very pedantic.
> I think a KeyBuilder (or KeyFactory) class would be a big usability benefit and reduce
the amount of code that clients have to write to most efficiently construct Keys.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message