hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik Holstad (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HBASE-880) Improve the current client API by creating new container classes
Date Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:33:30 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12704190#action_12704190
] 

Erik Holstad commented on HBASE-880:
------------------------------------

@Stack
+1 on dropping TimeRange.

Yes, if you do a delete with a timestamp that doesn't exist in HBase it will have no effect
at all.  
I don't really like to go look for things to delete, cause that means that you have to do
a get to do a delete and to me that kind of defeats the purpose of having the new storage
format.
In the new implementation of memcache if you do a delete with a specified timestamp and that
put is in there, I was thinking that you would remove the put and the delete since the delete
has already been used and doesn't do any good any more. So what I think is better if want
to support deletion of the latest version without specifying the timestamp is to lift this
logic into the deleteCheck of the server. Maybe that is what you meant?




> Improve the current client API by creating new container classes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-880
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-880
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: client
>            Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
>             Fix For: 0.20.0
>
>         Attachments: 880.patch, 880proposal4plus-v2.patch, 880proposal4plus.patch, 880proposal5-v2.patch,
880proposal5-v2.png, 880proposal5.patch, 880proposal5.png, hbase-880-patch.jpg, hbase-880-proposal4.patch,
HBASE-880-proposal6-v2.txt, HBASE-880-proposal6-v3.txt, HBASE-880-proposal6-v4.txt, hbase-880-v1.patch,
hbase-880-v2.patch, HBASE-880_Design_Doc.pdf, HBASE-880_Design_Doc_v2.pdf, HBASE-880_Design_Doc_v3.pdf,
hbase_client_classes.png, NewCilentAPIProposoal4.gif, proposal2.jpg, proposed.jpg
>
>   Original Estimate: 240h
>  Remaining Estimate: 240h
>
> The current API does not scale very well. For each new feature, we have to add many methods
to take care of all the overloads. Also, the need to batch row operations (gets, inserts,
deletes) implies that we have to manage some "entities" like we are able to do with BatchUpdate
but not with the other operations. The RowLock should be an attribute of such an entity.
> The scope of this jira is only to replace current API with another feature-compatible
one, other methods will be added in other issues.

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


Mime
View raw message