Github user keith-turner commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/29#discussion_r28750135
--- Diff:
minicluster/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/minicluster/MiniAccumuloConfig.java
---
@@ -108,6 +108,19 @@ public MiniAccumuloConfig setZooKeeperStartupTime(long
zooKeeperStartupTime) {
}
/**
+ * Configure an existing ZooKeeper instance to use. Calling this method
is optional. If not set, a new ZooKeeper instance is created.
+ *
+ * @param existingZooKeepers
+ * Connection string for a already-running ZooKeeper instance
+ *
+ * @since 1.7.0
+ */
+ public MiniAccumuloConfig setExistingZooKeepers(String
existingZooKeepers) {
--- End diff --
> It is, but I don't see a place where we actually leak
MiniAccumuloCluster/Config through that class. Did I miss something?
No, not implying anything leaks.
> If we want to be really picky (and these changes go on the impl), we
should not even expose the new property via MiniAccumuloRunner. Is this what
you were pointing to?
Just thinking that if we add it to mini runner, that we will need to
continue to support that option in mini runner. I think its very similar to
adding to API. I am not opposed or in favor of adding an option to mini
runner or API. I don't know enough about the performance impact to have an
opinion about adding to API or mini runner. I am really curious about the
performance impact.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
