Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:18:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: "stack (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13110566.1508386106000.20114.1508523481186@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13110566.1508386106000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13110566.1508386106000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13110566.1508386106762@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Updated] (HBASE-19043) Purge TableWrapper and
 CoprocessorHConnnection
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:18:07 -0000


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19043?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

stack updated HBASE-19043:
--------------------------
      Resolution: Fixed
    Hadoop Flags: Reviewed
          Status: Resolved  (was: Patch Available)

Pushed to master and branch-2.

Ran failed test locally a few times and passes. Checked out what tests did run and seems like all.

Thanks [~anoop.hbase] for review.

> Purge TableWrapper and CoprocessorHConnnection
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-19043
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19043
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Coprocessors
>            Reporter: stack
>            Assignee: stack
>             Fix For: 2.0.0-alpha-4
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-19043.master.001.patch, HBASE-19043.master.002.patch, HBASE-19043.master.003.patch, HBASE-19043.master.004.patch, HBASE-19043.master.005.patch, HBASE-19043.master.006.patch, HBASE-19043.master.007.patch, HBASE-19043.master.007.patch
>
>
> Repeating note from dev list today which had assent from [~apurtell] and [~appy]:
> {code}
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Punt the Coprocessor TableWrapper and CoprocessorHConnection?
> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> tl;dr I believe the original intent for TableWrapper and
> CoprocessorHConnection can now be gotten elsewhere so we should purge these
> classes.
> In base CoprocessorEnvironment, there are methods to return a Table
> instance. There are none to return an Admin. In our code base, the only
> user is the AccessController. Phoenix uses it twice in its Indexer
> implementation.
> When you call CE#getTable, the default implementation in
> BaseEnvironemnt calls HTableWrapper.createWrapper which takes a
> BaseEnvironment List in which we keep all Table instances. On shutdown of
> the coprocessor, the list is iterated and all tables are closed.
> Going via TableWrapper, the class comment says:
> * A wrapper for HTable. Can be used to restrict privilege.
> *
> * Currently it just helps to track tables opened by a Coprocessor and
> * facilitate close of them if it is aborted.
> *
> * We also disallow row locking.
> *
> * There is nothing now that will stop a coprocessor from using HTable
> * objects directly instead of this API, but in the future we intend to
> * analyze coprocessor implementations as they are loaded and reject those
> * which attempt to use objects and methods outside the Environment
> * sandbox.
> TableWrapper by my reading delegates all calls to a Table instance with no
> interception (there is not rowlocking to override anymore). On open, we do
> ensure the Table is up on a CoprocessorHConnection which does the following:
> * Connection to an HTable from within a Coprocessor. We can do some
> nice tricks since we know we
> * are on a regionserver, for instance skipping the full
> serialization/deserialization of objects
> * when talking to the server.
> The above 'trick' is now commonplace in servers as the Master and
> RegionServer always make Connections that will short-circuit if an
> opportunity.
> As I read TableWrapper and CoprocessorHConnection, they were written at
> another time when Table construction was heavyweight and Table#close was
> not expected of clients and before the introduction of the general
> Server-side short-circuit Connection facility.
> Unless objection, I think we should purge them.
> Writing here in case I'm missing some key facility they provide.
> {code}
> See http://search-hadoop.com/m/HBase/YGbb8uCtg26VkBy?subj=+DISCUSS+Punt+the+Coprocessor+TableWrapper+and+CoprocessorHConnection+
> This issue is about removing these classes.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)