[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12635800#action_12635800
]
stack commented on HBASE-880:
-----------------------------
Looking at this, regards RowOperation, don't you think the timestamp belong
rather with the specification of what we're to get or delete or update? If we
do this, it facilitates batching a bunch of operations against the one row but
each with its own timestamp specification (and +1, the timestamp needs to be
specifiable as a range with start and end for all Operations).
Is it true that we cannot do a mix of update/get/deletes on the one row all in
the one operation (as was possible with old BatchUpdate). Looks like you'd do
a get only, or an update only, or a delete only; you might batch them true but
they'd run in series rather than all as part of the one row operation. Is this
the case? (Its almost as though an Operation should 'have' Gets, Deletes, and
Updates)
IIRC, doing the below was problematic:
{code}
public RowResult getRow(RowGet) could be changed to return SortedMap<byte[],
Cell>
{code}
Sorry, I don't remember the detail.
-1 on 'Rename RowUpdate to RowMutation.' IMO, mutation is c++ speak whereas
update is db speak.
On constructors vs. setters, this is an age-old argument. Lets have one or the
other, not both. If lots of arguments, that would seem to favor setters though
invoking all the setters on a newly created object makes for ugly code -- and
possibly half-initialized objects -- and I dislike the fact that setters makes
our objects mutable.
This stuff is hard. I'm glad we've moved to diagramming. Better for working
out ideas.
Other things to consider:
+ Scanner API needs to align.
+ Batching needs to get diagrammed too so we're sure we have it covered.
> Improve the current client API by creating new container classes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-880
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-880
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: client
> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Assignee: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Fix For: 0.19.0
>
> Attachments: hbase-880-patch.jpg, hbase-880-v1.patch,
> hbase-880-v2.patch, hbase_client_classes.png
>
>
> The current API does not scale very well. For each new feature, we have to
> add many methods to take care of all the overloads. Also, the need to batch
> row operations (gets, inserts, deletes) implies that we have to manage some
> "entities" like we are able to do with BatchUpdate but not with the other
> operations. The RowLock should be an attribute of such an entity.
> The scope of this jira is only to replace current API with another
> feature-compatible one, other methods will be added in other issues.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
