hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Rowkey design question
Date Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:15:05 GMT
Lars, Andrew, Michael,

This particular discussion isn't bearing fruit for the user@hbase audience.
If you wish to continue it, especially with the current tone, please do so
on dev@.

Michael, IANAL but the ASF offers indemnification as a means of encouraging
development and adoption of the projects it hosts. If you'd like to know
about the specific protections afforded you as a contributor please take it
up with legal@apache.

-- 
Sean
On Apr 11, 2015 12:59 PM, "Michael Segel" <michael_segel@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well Lars, looks like that hypoxia has set in…
>
> If you’ve paid attention, its not that I’m against server side
> extensibility.
>
> Its how its been implemented which is a bit brain dead.
>
> I suggest you think more about why having end user code running in the
> same JVM as the RS is not a good thing.
> (Which is why in Feb. Andrew made a patch that allowed one to turn off the
> coprocessor function completely or after the system coprocessors loaded. )
>
> The sad truth is that you could have run the coprocessor code in a
> separate JVM.
> You have to remember coprocessors are triggers, stored procedures and
> extensibility all rolled in to one.
>
> As to providing a patch… will you indemnify me if I get sued?  ;-)
> Didn’t think so.
>
> > On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:13 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> if you lecture people and call them stupid (as you did in an earlier
> email)
> > He said (quote) "committers are suffering from rectal induced hypoxia",
> we can let that pass as "stupid", I think. :)Maybe Michael can explain some
> day what "rectal induced hypoxia" is. I'm dying to know what I suffer from.
> >
> > In any case and in all seriousness. Michael, feel free to educate
> yourself about what the intended use of coprocessors is - preferably before
> you come here and start an argument ... again. We're more than happy to
> accept a patch from you with a "correct" implementation.
> >
> > Can we just let this thread die? It didn't start with a useful
> proposition.
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >     From: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 4:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rowkey design question
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hint: You could have sandboxed the end user code which makes it a lot
> >> easier to manage.
> >>
> >
> > I filed the fucking JIRA for that. Look at HBASE-4047. As a matter of
> > social grace, if you lecture people and call them stupid (as you did in
> an
> > earlier email) while making the same fucking argument the other person
> > made, this doesn't work.
> >
> > The reason I never did finish HBASE-4047 is I didn't need to. Nobody here
> > or where I worked, ultimately, was banging down the door for an external
> > coprocessor host. What we have works well enough for people today.
> >
> > If you do think the external coprocessor host is essential, try taking on
> > the actual engineering challenges involved. Hint: They are not easy. Put
> up
> > a patch. Writing words in an email is easy. ​
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >   - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>
> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitive
> thought, that is purely accidental.
> Use at your own risk.
> Michael Segel
> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

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