hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Namespace Delimiter
Date Thu, 09 May 2013 00:11:04 GMT
bq. by recognizing existing tables with "." as part of the default
namespace or automatically create namespaces for tables with dots in them.

I think putting existing tables with "." in table name as part of default
namespace is better choice among the two.

Cheers

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Francis Liu <toffer@apache.org> wrote:

> There shouldn't be any ambiguity. There's fully-qualified table names and
> there's table names.  Table name constant changes were to make the names
> less funky.
>
> I like your suggestion since it simplifies migration. Though it seems
> we're kicking the can down the road here. In a way we're avoiding the
> problem by specifying an internal delimiter and adding extra complexity to
> prevent the user from using it. Having a way of specifying a table fully
> qualified seems to be something fundamental and convenient, if we don't
> support one now we'll have even more trouble in the future. Looking at the
> suggestions we can potentially make migration painless by recognizing
> existing tables with "." as part of the default namespace or automatically
> create namespaces for tables with dots in them. Neither requires renaming
> tables. They only need to rename tables if they want to start organizing
> things into namespaces which they will have to do in any scenario.
>
> -Francis
>
> On May 8, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Elliott Clark wrote:
>
> > With this solution there's no naming ambiguity.  There's no
> > overloading table name to actually be two different things.  There's
> > no need for users to rename their tables. Most code that is already
> > written will still be source compatible.  No need to change table name
> > constants or anything like that.
> >
>
>

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