hadoop-common-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "dhruba borthakur (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HADOOP-4952) Improved files system interface for the application writer.
Date Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:21:57 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4952?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12756532#action_12756532

dhruba borthakur commented on HADOOP-4952:

The latest patch looks good. A few minor comments and questions:

* The primitiveCreate(), primitiveMkdir() methods seem to have there only for backward compatibility
and would probably go away in a future release. Can it be marked as Deprecated?

* Some file systems like LocalFileSystem have an initial workingDir. Can you pl explain why
this is so? what is the value of this initial working dir?

* In FileContext.java, there is a comment "TBD - explain more here.", "@see xxx for details",
"TBD Also the exceptions thrown by", "TBD for HADOOP-6223", 

* would applications need to access FileContext.makeAbsolute()? Can this method be made public?

* Path.isAbsolute() and Path.isPathComponentAlbolute() look strikingly same to me. do we need

There are some places where the "Deprecated" tag is not in place because it generates HudsonQA
warnings. How about if we tag the appropriate methods as Deprecated and then knowingly ignore
the "-1 from HudsonQA for javac warnings"?

> Improved files system interface for the application writer.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HADOOP-4952
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-4952
>             Project: Hadoop Common
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 0.21.0
>            Reporter: Sanjay Radia
>            Assignee: Sanjay Radia
>         Attachments: FileContext-common10.patch, FileContext-common11.patch, FileContext-common12.patch,
FileContext-common13.patch, FileContext-common14.patch, FileContext-common16.patch, FileContext-common18.patch,
FileContext-common19.patch, FileContext-common21.patch, FileContext-common22.patch, FileContext-hdfs10.patch,
FileContext-hdfs11.patch, FileContext3.patch, FileContext5.patch, FileContext6.patch, FileContext7.patch,
FileContext9.patch, Files.java, Files.java, FilesContext1.patch, FilesContext2.patch
> Currently the FIleSystem interface serves two purposes:
> - an application writer's interface for using the Hadoop file system
> - a file system implementer's interface (e.g. hdfs, local file system, kfs, etc)
> This Jira proposes that we provide a simpler interfaces for the application writer and
leave the FilsSystem  interface for the implementer of a filesystem.
> - Filesystem interface  has a  confusing set of methods for the application writer
> - We could make it easier to take advantage of the URI file naming
> ** Current approach is to get FileSystem instance by supplying the URI and then access
that name space. It is consistent for the FileSystem instance to not accept URIs for other
schemes, but we can do better.
> ** The special copyFromLocalFIle can be generalized as a  copyFile where the src or target
can be generalized to any URI, including the local one.
> ** The proposed scheme (below) simplifies this.
> -	The client side config can be simplified. 
> ** New config() by default uses the default config. Since this is the common usage pattern,
one should not need to always pass the config as a parameter when accessing the file system.
> -	
> ** It does not handle multiple file systems too well. Today a site.xml is derived from
a single Hadoop cluster. This does not make sense for multiple Hadoop clusters which may have
different defaults.
> ** Further one should need very little to configure the client side:
> *** Default files system.
> *** Block size 
> *** Replication factor
> *** Scheme to class mapping
> ** It should be possible to take Blocksize and replication factors defaults from the
target file system, rather then the client size config.  I am not suggesting we don't allow
setting client side defaults, but most clients do not care and would find it simpler to take
the defaults for their systems  from the target file system. 

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message