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 17:51:30 GMT
BTW, thank you Todd and Stack for all your effort in making changes to HDFS
to make it work well with HBase. These changes are very important in making
HDFS better!

On 6/8/11 10:47 AM, "Dhruba Borthakur" <dhruba@gmail.com> wrote:

> I too think that LimitedPrivate is a good idea for projects that work
> closely with the Hadoop ecosystem (Hive, HBase, MR, etc) It allows us to
> experiment with an API, that if proved useful in the longer run, can
> graduate to be a public API in future.
> Some people may rightly claim that this gives unfair advantage to projects
> in the Hadoop ecosystem vs projects that are outside of this system, but I
> see no harm in that. One reason for this is that there are many developers
> who work on multiple of these projects, and it is easier to coordinate
> changes among these projects.
> thanks,
> -dhruba
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Suresh Srinivas
> <sureshms@yahoo-inc.com>wrote:
>> 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
>> future.
>> 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