We have lots of examples of including non-Public stuff in Public APIs. we have docs that advise folks to be wary on relying on them beyond opaque symbols.
ref: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hbase.client.api.surface On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > I was going to suggest LimitedPrivate in my original, but this doesn't make > sense as we're exposing Public API via CellUtil. > > It seems odd to me that we wouldn't treat the cell tags as a supported API > call. However, I'm happy to remain "confused" if the rest of folks don't > consider tags to be intended for users :) > > > On 9/21/17 3:15 PM, Ted Yu wrote: >> >> Can we mark Tag LimitedPrivate ? >> >> We know how ATS uses Tags so it should be straight forward to keep their >> usage intact. >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hiya, >>> >>> (Background, I'm starting what is likely to be an onerous task of looking >>> through downstream components and seeing what is broken with the latest >>> hbase-2.0.0*) >>> >>> Looking at YARN's use of HBase for the Application TimelineServer, I see >>> that they're relying on the Tag interface. >>> >>> Presently, Tag is marked as Private, yet we expose it via the Public >>> CellUtil. >>> >>> My gut reaction is that we should bump Tag up Public since the intent is >>> for downstream users to, ya know, use those Tags. Any objections? >>> >>> If we don't want to expose Tag, we should make a pass over the Public >>> methods and mark them as Private (so not as to provide a Public method >>> with >>> Private objects). CellUtil#getTag(Cell, byte) would be one such example. >>> >>> - Josh >>> >> >
