[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2385?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12557431#action_12557431
]
Doug Cutting commented on HADOOP-2385:
--------------------------------------
> Why setters need to be static?
Users need to, e.g., be able to set HDFS parameters on a JobConf. We can get
away with a single subclass of Configuration that has setters, but once we add
a second, it would be impossible to create a single configuration instance that
can configure multiple components.
> Why per-package, not per-component?
That's fine too. You seemed to be complaining that classes were too specific
for this case, so I said I was okay with per-package if you thought that more
appropirate here, although perhaps that's too general for your taste in this
case, and you'd rather separate, e.g., Namenode from Datanode parameters.
That's fine with me too. However I don't find the argument that FSNamesystem
is already too big compelling. That's a separate issue: it should perhaps be
decomposed into multiple classes, and when that's done, configuration accessors
might move around, but if there are FSNamesystem-specific configuration
accessors then I'd argue they belong in FSNamesystem, regardless of that
class's current size.
> Validate configuration parameters
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-2385
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2385
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: dfs
> Affects Versions: 0.16.0
> Reporter: Robert Chansler
>
> Configuration parameters should be fully validated before name nodes or data
> nodes begin service.
> Required parameters must be present.
> Required and optional parameters must have values of proper type and range.
> Undefined parameters must not be present.
> (I was recently observing some confusion whose root cause was a mis-spelled
> parameter.)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
