accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <busbey+li...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: "NOT" operator in visibility string
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:56:27 GMT
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, sfeng88 <susan.feng@altamiracorp.com>wrote:

> For scenario 1-3, it is a very small dataset that we will be adding/hiding.
> In addition, we would rather not duplicate Accumulo's Authorization code
> into our project to filter what should or should not be hidden from the
> user
> given our scenarios.
>
> Going through this entire thread, am I wrong to assume that Accumulo will
> not be accepting this patch? If so, please let us know so we can come up
> with alternative ways to solve our use cases.
>
>
>
>
Hey Susan!

We haven't called a formal vote, but from my estimation consensus within
the project is opposed to adding a NOT operator. After our pending releases
are handled, I'm going to try to pull the reasoning into a more organized
document since I expect this will come up again.

Since I'd like that document to include some examples that can be
implemented as is, even though NOT seems like an obvious choice, I'd be
happy to help worth through how your use case can be handled without a NOT
operator.

Did you happen to already read my earlier approach[1]? I believe it can be
used to accomplish all of the scenarios you presented.

-Sean

[1]: http://s.apache.org/35e

Mime
View raw message