hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Finishing up 0.96 --> WAS Re: 0.95 and 0.96 remaining issues
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:45:08 GMT
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > > so we might look at using Hadoop RPC directly again?
> >
> > Totally agree with that thought, Andrew. I must admit that I don't know
> > about all the context on why the HBase RPC forked in the first place :-)
> >
> >
> Bug fixes and speed optimizations
>
>
>
> > Your suggestion on using the Hadoop RPC work here makes sense. I am not
> too
> > sure whether that is practical in the short term though (we would need to
> > put in Tracing framework calls in Hadoop RPC and so on). IMO this will
> > further delay the 0.96 shipping as well. However doing the equivalent
> patch
> > for HADOOP-9421 in HBase will probably be easier and doable for 0.96...
> >
> >
> That patch won't go in to hbase.  Can you sketch the back and forth finally
> decided upon in an issue?  If you do this, I could help on how you might
> get it in.
>
>
I meant to say that using Hadoop RPC with changes needed for HBase to work
makes sense (and, of course, not the patch directly from HADOOP-9421 :-) )

But I'll write up the proposal implemented in HADOOP-9421 in a HBASE jira
and we can go from there.


> St.Ack
>

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