accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: "NOT" operator in visibility string
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:48:59 GMT
As an alternative, I think we could probably add more information to
the iterator environment, like access to the authorizations service,
to enable more robust filtering that these use cases require.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Sean Busbey <> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, sfeng88 <>
> 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]:

View raw message