The POSIX spec for readdir
(http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/readdir.html) doesn’t
spell out a sort order, so it should be assumed that the ordering isn’t
guaranteed.
Chris Siebenmann has written a few relative blog posts on the topic
that might be of interest here:
* https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/ReaddirHistory
* https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/ReaddirOrder
So I think it’s OK to break the _API_ here ...
** HOWEVER **
POSIX ls
(http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/ls.html) DOES require
its output be sorted. So breaking the sort order of 'hadoop fs -ls’ would be
*extremely* bad. We need to make sure that doesn’t change.
On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Vinayakumar B <vinayakum...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think the patch just updates the doc as of now, not changing any code to
> affect the existing usage.
>
> Sorting depends on the underlying implementations.
>
> Linux *ls *implementation returns alphanumerically sorted array by default
> ( Current implementation might have assumed from here to sort by default,
> just guessing ...) . But have some other options to sort on different
> attributes.
>
> Java's *File.listFiles() *javadoc specifies as follows: *There is no
> guarantee that the name strings in the resulting array will appear in any
> specific order; they are not, in particular, guaranteed to appear in
> alphabetical order. *
> So the current change is inline with Java's FileSystem API atleast.
>
> So IMO, its fine to commit the javadoc update.
>
> -Vinay
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> HADOOP-12009 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12009) patches
>> the FS javadoc and contract tests to say "the order you get things back
>> from a listStatus() isn't guaranteed to be alphanumerically sorted"
>>
>> That's one of those assumptions which we all have, but which, when you
>> think about it, doesn't have to be guaranteed.
>>
>> I'm going to commit the patch with the updated docs. Before I do that,
>> does anyone have any objection -that is, is there some fundamental
>> constraint which requires it to come back sorted? Such as the FS APIs and
>> other apps which do expect that sorting, and which are going to break if
>> the rules change? If so, they may need to be looked at.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
