hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBASE-1730 and HBASE-4213
Date Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:53:32 GMT
I prefer choice A below.

Let's vote on which implementation is the better approach.

My vote is for 4213. Subbu implemented hbase-451 and has deep understanding
of related code.
Using zookeeper to record transient state is Andy's favorite choice.

Cheers

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> In my opinion we have three options:
>
> (a) have the two contributors work together on a single JIRA
> (b) factor out what's common between their approaches into a new JIRA,
> then let them proceed independently
> or (c) let them proceed independently, and whichever one reaches a
> suitable commitable state first, we go with
>
> If they both become committable around the same time, then we should
> go to benchmarks as well as comparisons of which codebase seems more
> maintainable.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Due to lack of coordination, HBASE-1730 and HBASE-4213 try to implement
> the
> > same feature at roughly the same pace.
> >
> > I want to hear your opinion on how we should plan to move forward with
> these
> > two JIRAs.
> > One possibility is to provide two policies, one accommodating each JIRA.
> But
> > that requires even more work.
> >
> > It would be nice if we can have some performance numbers for both
> > implementations on comparable cluster(s).
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message