Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 834FC9723 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 41676 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-user-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 41646 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 41638 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:14:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [75.150.60.225] (HELO adam.ccri.com) (75.150.60.225) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:14:44 +0000 Received: from [192.168.200.1] (unknown [192.168.200.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by adam.ccri.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DA6F260368; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FFB1161.5040501@ccri.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:14:09 -0400 From: John Armstrong Reply-To: john.armstrong@ccri.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Vines , user@accumulo.apache.org Subject: Re: WholeRowIterator, BatchScanner, and fetchColumnFamily don't play well together? References: <4FFB09FE.8030402@ccri.com> <1950524697.34063.1341852920064.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 07/09/2012 01:00 PM, John Vines wrote: > We have an open bug report about how Mock handles the reuse of Values. > I'm wondering if perhaps there is a conflict there with BatchScanner in > the same vain. More likely though, it's probably a case of BatchScanner > behaving like a Scanner in Mock due to the non-distributed nature of > Mock. I'm not really sure how we could expand the MockAccumulo framework > to be MockParallel though. Okay, I understand if that's hard to get exactly the same behavior in mock and production environments. But is the behavior I'm seeing in production the expected one?