hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques <whs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBase wire compatibility
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:41:27 GMT
Fair enough.  That's why I mentioned ByteString more than anything else.
 If the new RPC will always convert client api/application values into
ByteStrings and my application is always storing protobuf keys and protobuf
objects, it'd be nice if I could just hand you a ByteString as the value
for each of these rather than converting them back to byte[] and then
having you convert them again.


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jacques <whshub@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or at a minimum, it would be nice that if
> > we wanted to get access to the lower level pb objects, that modifications
> > to HTable and/or supporting classes wouldn't be super complicated.
> It's less a matter of complexity, and more a matter of not wanting to
> expose the implementation details as part of the API. It really
> restricts us when we do this -- for example, KeyValue is used in the
> underlying storage all the way up through the client API, which means
> it's verify difficult for us to do something like switch to an
> off-heap storage for cell data, for example.
> That said, the request for an easy way to build convenience APIs with
> low numbers of copies makes sense
> -Todd
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera

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