hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject [DISCUSSION] Removing the bypass semantic from the Coprocessor APIs
Date Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:10:55 GMT
The coprocessor API provides an environment method, bypass(), that when
called from a preXXX hook will cause the core code to skip all remaining
processing. This capability was introduced on HBASE-3348. Since this time I
think we are more enlightened about the complications of this feature. (Or,
anyway, speaking for myself:)

Not all hooks provide the bypass semantic. Where this is the case the
javadoc for the hook says so, but it can be missed. If you call bypass() in
a hook where it is not supported it is a no-op. This can lead to a poor
developer experience.

Where bypass is supported what is being bypassed is all of the core code
implementing the remainder of the operation. In order to understand what
calling bypass() will skip, a coprocessor implementer should read and
understand all of the remaining code and its nuances. Although I think this
is good practice for coprocessor developers in general, it demands a lot. I
think it would provide a much better developer experience if we didn't
allow bypass, even though it means - in theory - a coprocessor would be a
lot more limited in some ways than before. What is skipped is extremely
version dependent. That core code will vary, perhaps significantly, even
between point releases. We do not provide the promise of consistent
behavior even between point releases for the bypass semantic. To achieve
that we could not change any code between hook points. Therefore the
coprocessor implementer becomes an HBase core developer in practice as soon
as they rely on bypass(). Every release of HBase may break the assumption
that the replacement for the bypassed code takes care of all necessary
skipped concerns. Because those concerns can change at any point, such an
assumption is never safe.

I say "in theory" because I would be surprised if anyone is relying on the
bypass for the above reason. I seem to recall that Phoenix might use it in
one place to promote a normal mutation into an atomic operation, by
substituting one for the other, but if so that objective could be
reimplemented using their new locking manager.

-- 
Best regards,
Andrew

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