incubator-hcatalog-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Gates <>
Subject Re: StorageHandler vs StorageDriver
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2011 22:30:35 GMT
We need someway to convert from the underlying records to HowlRecords.  We don't want to expose
Pig and MR to SerDes as a way to do deserialization.  But I agree that there is significant
overlap between StorageDrivers and StorageHandlers.  If we could find a way to encapsulate
the small remaining portion of Drivers (the HowlRecord production) into StorageHandlers or
a subclass of StorageHandlers, we could make HCat's design simpler and make it easier for
users using it.

I propose that we have the first ever HCat developer meetup in the next week or so, with a
design discussion for this as the agenda.  Hortonworks is happy to host.


On Oct 5, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Francis Christopher Liu wrote:

> Hi,
> After having worked on some patches for HCat, it would seem that StorageHandler can not
only replace the *StorageDriver but do more than that. StorageHandlers support management
of tables, a "Create Table" command using Hive's HBaseStorageHandler in the CLI would create
the table in HBase and register it in the metastore. There are many other advantages when
using storagehandlers such as better interoperability with hive. 
> Support for StorageHandlers will be added with HCatalog-89. It would be redundant to
have both storage frameworks. Is there a reason why we should still have StorageDrivers?
> -Francis  

View raw message