I can appreciate how we've gotten to this point, it just struck me
extremely odd that the contents of a Tag weren't expected to be accessed
by users. "Arbitrary metadata that rides along with a cell, you just
can't see that metadata" ;)
I totally understand not wanting to let another thing come into 2.0.
Like MikeD said, let's hope for a faster 3.0 and we can slate this for
that time.
Thanks for entertaining the discussion. We'll just deal with the
"downstream pain" for 2.0.
On 9/22/17 1:32 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan wrote:
CellUtil similar type of methods. Coming to Tags yes there are not much
cases where clients can directly set Tags. And I think we don't expose any
APIs which allow you to use mutations with Tags. So probably moving to
LimitedPrivate is better and mark with Evolving if there are some users
depending on the internals of Tags and its impl. But this will be a One of
case.
And also since Tags are internal ideally the CellUtil#getTAgs() should have
been in another Util method that is exposed with LimitedPrivate and also
Tags if tags should be made LimitedPRivate. So this may help in not having
a PRivate interface like Tag in a public CellUtil class.
3.0 is fine but need some clean up in 2.0? Indicating what could happen
going forward from 2.0?
Regards
Ram
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah. I mean, I think we should improve the situation. Just think
it's too much to bite off at this stage of 2.0, we can aim for 3.0 and
start working in some tooling to help us.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
That really makes me groan (we have downstream users depending on code
we've
explicitly said "don't use"), but if that's what it is given the current
state, so be it. My complaining won't fix it.
Thanks.
On 9/21/17 4:25 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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
