Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB692C148 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 18:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24077 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2012 18:54:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 24039 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2012 18:54:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 24031 invoked by uid 99); 3 May 2012 18:54:49 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2012 18:54:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jxiang@cloudera.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.169] (HELO mail-ob0-f169.google.com) (209.85.214.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2012 18:54:42 +0000 Received: by obbwd18 with SMTP id wd18so3791052obb.14 for ; Thu, 03 May 2012 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=RoU3S/ig37zYhGzAJAKnoYisMsTpE7Al8QqsfHMMoBg=; b=hsRxWcKTTtRpiCRSBfyYXrXNiV85NNSxWxo3caouqTyTj+cZ/A7szPVv9jH8SLA4eP 7gP9QsOW1Pi8aNjr6i4N5lyOZSNogsBKWLCOtXwemwle91mo/YQxRK5Fn2oo4fROEgpK nCtfc6Ky+c+T0xqNCgX24UJUHIuHOffx1+fP54i9ArbZWsiIS0F7v88L/xctp9RhV53V xAdbUT9bvJH6NYG+M+kr6Po5B7f1Ez+heG1zthqJZBYspiRK3YOk/PrktINsiZduK/Nw 6KXSnPydLXA4PEeECGQC1watw9uqaUxTTwBIJZe7d6Bw0SNT0qj9PlJlCF47BbhmKIYJ LNXQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.86.200 with SMTP id r8mr4473827obz.20.1336071262122; Thu, 03 May 2012 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.152.35 with HTTP; Thu, 3 May 2012 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 11:54:22 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Removing HRegionInterface in 0.96, HBASE-5889 From: Jimmy Xiang To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444e9a3f9335a04bf26549c X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl83WYgfRit0r8uaYAeEq8OLm5u43TRHYPjfrqVcvD+WIl1dbjm0ygDW6OeW7qI485ZOUqk X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d0444e9a3f9335a04bf26549c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In 0.96, we are going to move to PB. But HRegionInterface is still there in case someone needs it. That means we need to maintain both implementations. It also prevents us moving to PB internally. I filed HBASE-5889 to address it. In reviewing the patch, Ted brought a good point. To those non-bundled (third-party) HBase client(s) using HRegionInterface directly, such as asynchbase, should 0.96 be a singularity too? Thanks, Jimmy --f46d0444e9a3f9335a04bf26549c--