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 AD681200D0C for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id ABFD01609E2; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:41:32 +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 BDEFC1609D8 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:41:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 64480 invoked by uid 500); 20 Sep 2017 16:41:30 -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 64468 invoked by uid 99); 20 Sep 2017 16:41:30 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:41:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D2927D2F88 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:41:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dhPkiG_7jYob for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com (mail-wr0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 12FD46127E for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m18so2651233wrm.2 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:41:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=ibFxa1s9742C35qL6siSdy9opmVxnjTW04M2vI9ex6o=; b=JCOFpvNUQUaJ0p/w69eoep35mboXadqc2lEOmFq5gOsnlhUPi5bvtQQIMD0ocfrLED Q29Je00PxcGM0OHY+bGuNl0hvXBoAFhXatKmUgRVs+Pglzn/vuHhi7ifeXkta8uzCK0+ cmvIIW/B7v7S1amEtbySroSkGyz6hTtf1ybvB//zEAIRkvJX4VuAtKePHocGaUExCqTw l2m05nGyoQ8Rvu7AoS7d3IZWnQeXWgl4FXEwMR/Bx/HVe8AX17jCxArO/Rn32MMCvFM0 GRFxS/Ve6NJAbJLaLmIQWGT9ISCTRAoCU8Q2AsPwrMw6XOExt1vp92I3jmbW1Nn4cqoJ ridg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ibFxa1s9742C35qL6siSdy9opmVxnjTW04M2vI9ex6o=; b=ePHG8sGPcmjTYhbpuNI5FwDw//WUrfYwVMiltBN/we4iYIcRSLHVUsuqS/o3T++Bpa 7ggHv/AVY+P5hvRsNP+3jx5Hn95Q4AE/LAO5YJVnbSUpnk3nZ35/lF4hDecxCJfVJSdb d3LgrRAQ54Yhxm+XYdFEU3WGyEhYOQyB/S1Ib2CPddvo5eqP1eN4sxCPV5JDPVc9TuAZ pZQheoVUUDjkJTfSzK+6p6IlB/ahXjNSz6CTlAn0/FTXDvj9sWTV2c/DTzFkuujvZC6+ 2qznlR4CIieEMwiCGMZEPfrkyMQy+ZPmYZOBYfGC7ZGIkjetNpj8aQZT9NSa+4Va88QF v93w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUi5ofoflUa+bP999XNAwjJepzeXUvQheVLCrBKkKP7/Z5GK7hXZ T8PojJO0iBtccgUWtBf39PAlaUE450fWbfb1L1dhAQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QD+TpzCMXYYG7GgIO4F6qPKkNKX0XLJT33Z15AImmeMZUOuk3oAjdog2Gzt+WVpajqE8N5Hl9sj8wfiCvw+DjI= X-Received: by 10.223.182.11 with SMTP id f11mr5149968wre.112.1505925680682; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:41:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.175.73 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:41:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Stack Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:41:19 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fajsY8Lu4oJ4NHyPyy8WnEkV6ZU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Introduce the limited private to filter To: HBase Dev List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043a173c415d840559a1a560" archived-at: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:41:32 -0000 --f403043a173c415d840559a1a560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Thanks Dave for chiming in. I like the suggestion Chia-Ping of LimittedPrivate + Stable. St.Ack On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Dave Latham wrote: > Thanks, Chia-Ping. I don't want to hold up improvements in HBase internals > on behalf of Filters. Changing at major releases sounds reasonable. > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai > wrote: > > > An alternative is that we make Filter IA.LimitedPrivate and > > InterfaceStability.Stable, so we guarantee the FIlter's APIs won't be > > changed in the patch/minor release. It seems to me the changing Filter's > IA > > declaration is necessary. The filter's APIs deeply embedded in our read > > path and thus the filter may hinder our improvement in given major > release > > because we have to do the proper deprecation cycle for IA.Public. I DON'T > > want to change the Filter's APIs at the present time, but we should get > > everything ready beforehand. > > > > On 2017-09-19 00:41, Dave Latham wrote: > > > Speaking on behalf of one HBase deployment, we do rely on custom > filters, > > > though have so far stayed away from more internal customizations such > as > > > co-processors. We've gotten the sense over the years that Filters were > > > fairly stable and seemed more reliable in that sense. I'd be sad if a > > > change like this meant that more caution will need to be used in order > to > > > rely on Filters. I understand that some cleanup may need to happen > (e.g. > > > HBASE-13346) but hope that we can still be conservative in breaking the > > > Filter apis. > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Chia-Ping Tsai > > wrote: > > > > > > > hi stack > > > > I have filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18811. FYI. > > > > > > > > On 2017-09-17 05:31, Stack wrote: > > > > > It is an oversight that Filters are not annotated as > > (limited)private. We > > > > > are unable to guarantee them what public entails given their design > > is as > > > > > yet imperfect and that they are interpolated at points subject to > > change. > > > > > > > > > > +1 on taking them limited private in 2.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up Chia-Ping Tsai. Apt. > > > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai < > chia7712@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Folks! > > > > > > > > > > > > We have many powerful callback functions to help user to build > > amazing > > > > > > application/services. The most of functions are declared as > > > > > > IA.LimitedPrivate excluding the filters. As i see it, the > > > > IA.LimitedPrivate > > > > > > will make the improvement of filter more flexible. Also, we can > > > > introduce > > > > > > more server-side components to filters. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9529 had already > left > > the > > > > > > TODO "add filter limited private level" on FilterBase. I feel it > is > > > > time to > > > > > > discuss it again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Chia-Ping Tsai > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --f403043a173c415d840559a1a560--