hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Hsieh <...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT conflicting with hbase-proto 0.96.x
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:48:50 GMT
So is the suggestion to just add the other signature to hbase's version?

We recently ran into another problem due to this ZeroCopy class --
shouldn't it really be pushed into protobuf, or pulled out as a separate
jar of some sort.  We ran into into class path/class loader problems with
it because if subclasses a com.google.protobuf class (out of a package).

Jon.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM, tsuna <tsunanet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Nicolas Liochon <nkeywal@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Should we not rename ZeroCopyLiteralByteString to something like
> > HBasePrivateZeroCopyLiteralByteString to be sure that we won't have name
> > conflicts in the future?
>
> I don't mind keeping the same name as long as we agree on the API.
> I don't expect this class to change much if at all anyway.  It's just
> really unfortunate that this method was changed, what's more with a
> signature that renders it unusable.
>
> --
> Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
>



-- 
// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
// jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh

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