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 2E3E71798C for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24631 invoked by uid 500); 23 Oct 2014 01:00:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 24492 invoked by uid 500); 23 Oct 2014 01:00:37 -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 23945 invoked by uid 99); 23 Oct 2014 01:00:36 -0000 Received: from ec2-54-191-145-13.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com (HELO mx1-us-west.apache.org) (54.191.145.13) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:00:36 +0000 Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 32E4A26E49 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org, from userid 114) id 27E2825E45; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:00:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mx1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 14A3226E49 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:00:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id p9so7322lbv.35 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:00:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=fe/zjyozS1WpsorxuGMCSBD2H/MstRIReUlfHK/mSVk=; b=mJPvYXBimzUxXMLIjIRg+Xk4LKTa48CfoDqElQMSYA+aa/uNcYMQTs/6RrMrKWfNBN vPeR/f3e6LUG0hIiawvIvsaqy0It1eLt8r1B2HT7DOAMuqCyU9clTjITg122DoUTpjTs 9LY9TQE+wB5Oe/XEGM/6+c/rmDu6egCwiP9BiKR5S86Wpn1Y5dhnT9EwvvgOPPpstG4b KxZFgvABOdqzZzh4ndfZtEUxDesvVXVJQDq5GrPjMhTL8kbZKe6Of8sIYbi+DNt1iA22 v/VW6ghN6Wtks8ZT6xkdBXUerc3cC9IaHGmAIvutkBHpniREH5Oo0g0IX2c9z8uUD0hV pLVA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.169.6 with SMTP id aa6mr1424960lbc.29.1414026022844; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.142.34 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:00:22 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Managed Connections and HBase 1.0 From: Solomon Duskis To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38e96cb821805060c9628 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP --001a11c38e96cb821805060c9628 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I have a question about managed vs. unmanaged connections in HBase 1.0. The new ConnectionFactory implementation and the Connection interface don't seem to include the concept of managed connections for tables. Are HTable managed connections going to be deprecated? -Solomon Duskis --001a11c38e96cb821805060c9628--