hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Forcing separate connections Was: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:51:08 GMT
Gary:
Karthick and I devised the following (HConstants.HBASE_CLIENT_INSTANCE_ID)
for the scenario you listed below:

  /**
   * Parameter name for unique identifier for this {@link Configuration}
   * instance. If there are two or more {@link Configuration} instances
that,
   * for all intents and purposes, are the same except for their instance
ids,
   * then they will not be able to share the same {@link Connection}
instance.
   * On the other hand, even if the instance ids are the same, it could
result
   * in non-shared {@link Connection} instances if some of the other
connection
   * parameters differ.
   */
  public static String HBASE_CLIENT_INSTANCE_ID = "hbase.client.instance.id
";

FYI

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com> wrote:

> Changing the connection identity behavior in the middle of a release series
> seems like a bad idea.
>
> The 0.20 releases did connection identity based on Configuration contents,
> 0.90 changed this to Configuration instance identity, then 0.90.5 would be
> going back to contents again (acknowledged with a smarter subset and guards
> against changes)?  If anyone running 0.90 relies on the current behavior to
> enforce separate connections (for whatever reason), using separate
> Configuration instances, this would break that behavior and appear as a
> regression right?
>
> Changing these underlying assumptions in a minor release doesn't seem
> right.  I agree it's nice to have the backport for those interested in
> trying it.  But I'd need some convincing that the current 0.90 behavior is
> completely broken rather than sub-optimal to agree to include it.
>
> --gh
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One reason for my endorsement is that it would take 0.92 quite some time
> to
> > reach the level of stability of 0.90.4
> > I really think HBASE-3777 would benefit HBase users a lot, and reducing
> > potential future inquiry about connection-related issues.
> >
> > Of course, backporting increases the amount of work for validation of
> > 0.90.5
> > But I think it is worth it.
> >
> > My two cents.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I'm -0 at the moment, it's a big patch to include in a point release.
> > >
> > > I'm glad the work was done tho because it means those interested (like
> > > me) can directly patch it in and test it (at my own risk).
> > >
> > > J-D
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Bright Fulton has volunteered to backport HBASE-3777 to 0.90
> > > > I endorse his effort.
> > > >
> > > > If you have comment(s), please share.
> > > >
> > > > I will open a new JIRA for this effort if this motion passes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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