commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roger Whitcomb <>
Subject RE: [VFS] Further changes to HDFS Provider for alternate configuration support
Date Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:24:47 GMT
I have opened issue with my proposed patch attached,
and these questions included in the issue.  Updated the patch with some things I noticed after
the initial post also.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:11 PM
To: 'Commons Developers List' <>
Subject: RE: [VFS] Further changes to HDFS Provider for alternate configuration support

I don't see the patch. It might be stripped off by the mail server.


From: Roger Whitcomb []
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 5:12 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: [VFS] Further changes to HDFS Provider for alternate configuration support


Hi all,

                In trying to solve some customer issues we're having, mainly to do with trying
to browse HDFS files when the Name Node is configured for High-Availability, I found I needed
to make some more changes/additions to the VFS HDFS Provider.  I have attached a diff/patch
file.  But, a couple of

.         This is a follow-on (basically) to my earlier patch for VFS-555,
should I open a new JIRA, or just reopen the existing one?

.         Since this actually changes an API (but which is not released
yet), is that an acceptable thing to do?

.         The new properties I have added to HdfsFileSystemConfigBuilder are
not actually symmetrical, so they don't fit the definition of a Java "property", that is the
setters are "setXXX" while the getters are "getXXXs"
(plural). The logic behind this is that the setters are called by user code, and each can
be called multiple times.  The getters are only (meant to be) called by the HdfsFileSystem
object (that is internally to the HdfsProvider), and thus it is a lot easier to get all the
settings at once than to have to make multiple calls, with potentially iterators, etc.

.         Is this too big a change to fit in last-minute before the release
of VFS 2.1?


Patch is attached.



~Roger Whitcomb

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message