hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Srinivas <sures...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: LimitedPrivate and HBase (thoughts from an observer)
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:41:23 GMT
I do not see any issue with the change that Todd has made. We have done
similar changes in HDFS-1586 in the past.

Making APIs public comes with a cost. That is what we are avoiding with
LimitedPrivate. The intention was to include the following projects that are
closely tied to Hadoop as projects eligible for LimitedPrivate.
{"HBase", "HDFS", "Hive", "MapReduce", "Pig"}. This list could grow in the

When such projects break because of API change, we can co-ordinate as
community and fix the issues. This is not true for some application that we
do not know of breaks!

If others, outside the umbrella of these projects need an API, they could
open a jira and we could address it.

On 6/8/11 9:40 AM, "Allen Wittenauer" <aw@apache.org> wrote:

> On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Doug Meil wrote:
>> Re: "How "closely related" does a project need to be to get this privilege?"
>> / " What is the criteria by which an API gets opened to something outside of
>> the Hadoop umbrella"
>> Given the context of the original question, is this debate really necessary?
>> Everybody knows that although HBase is a TLP now it grew out of Hadoop (e.g,
>> there's a chapter about HBase in the Hadoop book, etc.)  It's not like
>> somebody from Hypertable was strong-arming for feature requests.
> If HBase needs an API, why wouldn't something else?  Why should something be
> marked LimitedPrivate to HBase instead of just making it Public and being done
> with it? 

View raw message