hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "nkeywal (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-5905) Protobuf interface for Admin: split between the internal and the external/customer interface
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 19:16:48 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13266839#comment-13266839
] 

nkeywal commented on HBASE-5905:
--------------------------------

This would make sense if we think that customers should/will use the protobuf interface.
                
> Protobuf interface for Admin: split between the internal and the external/customer interface
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-5905
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5905
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: client, master, regionserver
>    Affects Versions: 0.96.0
>            Reporter: nkeywal
>
> After a short discussion with Stack, I create a jira.
> --
> I'am a little bit confused by the protobuf interface for closeRegion.
> We have two types of closeRegion today:
> 1) the external ones; available in client.HBaseAdmin. They take the server and the region
identifier as a parameter and nothing else.
> 2) The internal ones, called for example by the master. They have more parameters (like
versionOfClosingNode or transitionInZK).
> When I look at protobuf.ProtobufUtil, I see:
>   public static void closeRegion(final AdminProtocol admin,
>       final byte[] regionName, final boolean transitionInZK) throws IOException {
>     CloseRegionRequest closeRegionRequest =
>       RequestConverter.buildCloseRegionRequest(regionName, transitionInZK);
>     try {
>       admin.closeRegion(null, closeRegionRequest);
>     } catch (ServiceException se) {
>       throw getRemoteException(se);
>     }
>   }
> In other words, it seems that we merged the two interfaces into a single one. Is that
the intend?
> I checked, the internal fields in closeRegionRequest are all optional (that's good).
Still, it means that the end user could use them or at least would need to distinguish between
the "optional for functional reasons" and the "optional - do not use".

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message