hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Helmling (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-7460) Cleanup client connection layers
Date Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:20:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7460?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13557563#comment-13557563

Gary Helmling commented on HBASE-7460:

[~lhofhansl] Do you have any thoughts on this refactoring since I think it ties in to resource
management you've looked at from the HConnection / HTable side?
> Cleanup client connection layers
> --------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-7460
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7460
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Client, IPC/RPC
>            Reporter: Gary Helmling
>            Assignee: Gary Helmling
>             Fix For: 0.96.0
>         Attachments: HBASE-7460_2.patch
> This issue originated from a discussion over in HBASE-7442.  We currently have a broken
abstraction with {{HBaseClient}}, where it is bound to a single {{Configuration}} instance
at time of construction, but then reused for all connections to all clusters.  This is combined
with multiple, overlapping layers of connection caching.
> Going through this code, it seems like we have a lot of mismatch between the higher layers
and the lower layers, with too much abstraction in between. At the lower layers, most of the
{{ClientCache}} stuff seems completely unused. We currently effectively have an {{HBaseClient}}
singleton (for {{SecureClient}} as well in 0.92/0.94) in the client code, as I don't see anything
that calls the constructor or {{RpcEngine.getProxy()}} versions with a non-default socket
factory. So a lot of the code around this seems like built up waste.
> The fact that a single Configuration is fixed in the {{HBaseClient}} seems like a broken
abstraction as it currently stands. In addition to cluster ID, other configuration parameters
(max retries, retry sleep) are fixed at time of construction. The more I look at the code,
the more it looks like the {{ClientCache}} and sharing the {{HBaseClient}} instance is an
unnecessary complication. Why cache the {{HBaseClient}} instances at all? In {{HConnectionManager}},
we already have a mapping from {{Configuration}} to {{HConnection}}. It seems to me like each
{{HConnection(Implementation)}} instance should have it's own {{HBaseClient}} instance, doing
away with the {{ClientCache}} mapping. This would keep each {{HBaseClient}} associated with
a single cluster/configuration and fix the current breakage from reusing the same {{HBaseClient}}
against different clusters.
> We need a refactoring of some of the interactions of {{HConnection(Implementation)}},
{{HBaseRPC/RpcEngine}}, and {{HBaseClient}}. Off hand, we might want to expose a separate
{{RpcEngine.getClient()}} method that returns a new {{RpcClient}} interface (implemented by
{{HBaseClient}}) and move the {{RpcEngine.getProxy()}}/{{stopProxy()}} implementations into
the client. So all proxy invocations can go through the same client, without requiring the
static client cache. I haven't fully thought this through, so I could be missing other important
aspects. But that approach at least seems like a step in the right direction for fixing the
client abstractions.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

View raw message