Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C05200C00 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:01:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 023D2160B43; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:52 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D526160B22 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:01:51 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 3681 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2017 22:01:50 -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 3670 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jan 2017 22:01:50 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DBBE41A06DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3X9bR3iZokK for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 19A4B5F282 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DAE39E8660 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7150C25289 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:26 +0000 (UTC) From: "Michael Axiak (JIRA)" To: dev@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Created] (HBASE-17486) Tighten the contract for batch client methods MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:01:52 -0000 Michael Axiak created HBASE-17486: ------------------------------------- Summary: Tighten the contract for batch client methods Key: HBASE-17486 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17486 Project: HBase Issue Type: Bug Components: API Reporter: Michael Axiak Priority: Trivial Right now, the API documentation for Table#get(List) and Table#batch(List, Result[]) both leave open the possibility for the ordering of the result array to be independent of the input actions. In at least the batch method case, ordering of the result array is important in order to know which partial requests failed in the event of an exception. Since that contact is required in the batch case, I think it should be extended to the get(List) case as well to make the API easier. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)