hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ramkrishna vasudevan <ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Increase stability on o.a.h.h.Tag?
Date Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:32:57 GMT
CellUtil  similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much
cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any
APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to
LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users
depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of
case.

And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have
been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also
Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having
a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class.

3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen
going forward from 2.0?

Regards
Ram



On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:

> Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve  the situation. Just think
> it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and
> start working in some tooling to help us.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
> > That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code
> we've
> > explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current
> > state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >>
> >> We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs.
> >> we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond
> >> opaque symbols.
> >>
> >> ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't
> >>> make
> >>> sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil.
> >>>
> >>> It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported
> >>> API
> >>> call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks
> don't
> >>> consider tags to be intended for users :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ?
> >>>>
> >>>> We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep
> their
> >>>> usage intact.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hiya,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of
> >>>>> looking
> >>>>> through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the
> latest
> >>>>> hbase-2.0.0*)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer,
I
> >>>>> see
> >>>>> that they're relying on the Tag interface.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public
> >>>>> CellUtil.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public
> >>>>> methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public
> method
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such
> >>>>> example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>

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