Github user ctubbsii commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/253#discussion_r119182922 --- Diff: server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/fs/PerTableVolumeChooser.java --- @@ -67,86 +69,67 @@ public String choose(VolumeChooserEnvironment env, String[] options) throws Accu return chooser.choose(env, options); } - private VolumeChooser getVolumeChooserForTable(VolumeChooserEnvironment env, ServerConfigurationFactory localConf) { + private VolumeChooser getVolumeChooserForTable(VolumeChooserEnvironment env, ServerConfigurationFactory localConf) throws AccumuloException { VolumeChooser chooser; if (log.isTraceEnabled()) { log.trace("Table id: " + env.getTableId()); } final TableConfiguration tableConf = localConf.getTableConfiguration(env.getTableId()); String clazz = tableConf.get(Property.TABLE_VOLUME_CHOOSER); - if (null == clazz || clazz.isEmpty()) { - chooser = fallbackVolumeChooser; - } else { - chooser = tableSpecificChooser.get(env.getTableId()); - if (chooser == null) { - VolumeChooser temp = Property.createTableInstanceFromPropertyName(tableConf, Property.TABLE_VOLUME_CHOOSER, VolumeChooser.class, fallbackVolumeChooser); - chooser = tableSpecificChooser.putIfAbsent(env.getTableId(), temp); - if (chooser == null) { - chooser = temp; - // Otherwise, someone else beat us to initializing; use theirs. - } - } else if (!(chooser.getClass().getName().equals(clazz))) { - if (log.isTraceEnabled()) { - log.trace("change detected for table id: " + env.getTableId()); - } - // the configuration for this table's chooser has been updated. In the case of failure to instantiate we'll repeat here next call. - // TODO stricter definition of when the updated property is used, ref ACCUMULO-3412 - VolumeChooser temp = Property.createTableInstanceFromPropertyName(tableConf, Property.TABLE_VOLUME_CHOOSER, VolumeChooser.class, fallbackVolumeChooser); - VolumeChooser last = tableSpecificChooser.replace(env.getTableId(), temp); - if (chooser.equals(last)) { - chooser = temp; - } else { - // Someone else beat us to updating; use theirs. - chooser = last; - } - } - } - return chooser; + + return createVolumeChooser(clazz, Property.TABLE_VOLUME_CHOOSER.getKey(), env.getTableId(), tableSpecificChooser); } - private VolumeChooser getVolumeChooserForNonTable(VolumeChooserEnvironment env, ServerConfigurationFactory localConf) { + private VolumeChooser getVolumeChooserForNonTable(VolumeChooserEnvironment env, ServerConfigurationFactory localConf) throws AccumuloException { VolumeChooser chooser; - final String customProperty = Property.GENERAL_ARBITRARY_PROP_PREFIX.getKey() + env.getScope() + ".volume.chooser"; + String property = VOLUME_CHOOSER_SCOPED_KEY(env.getScope()); if (log.isTraceEnabled()) { log.trace("Scope: " + env.getScope()); - log.trace("Looking up property: " + customProperty); + log.trace("Looking up property: " + property); } AccumuloConfiguration systemConfiguration = localConf.getConfiguration(); - String clazz = systemConfiguration.get(customProperty); + String clazz = systemConfiguration.get(property); + // only if the custom property is not set to we fallback to the table volumn chooser setting + if (null == clazz) { --- End diff -- @matthpeterson I'm not sure I follow. The implementation logic for `PerTableVolumeChooser` is basically: ``` if (per-table-scope) { delegate = getTableConfig(table).getTableChooser() } else { // non-table scope delegate = getSystemConfiguration().getScopeChooser(scope) } delegate.choose() ``` If resolving the delegate chooser fails, we should simply report the error. Is that not what we're doing? What have I overlooked? As for the property name, etc. ... I don't think we should add new baked-in properties which possibly only apply to the implementation of one specific chooser. I'm still not sold 100% on the `table.volume.chooser` property being baked-in rather than a custom property(1). It was modeled after the per-table balancer, which did that, so there was some precedent. At least it is still marked "experimental", so we have some flexibility to change things if we can agree on something better that is consistent with all the implementation configs (per-table and per-non-table scopes). (1): because it only applies to choosers who not only behave differently on different tables, but specifically those who do so by loading a different delegate chooser from per-table configs
--- 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. ---