[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15323312#comment-15323312
]
Andrew Wang commented on HDFS-9924:
-----------------------------------
Thanks everyone for the input. It sounds like stack and Zhe would also like a
branch. Jitendra and Nicholas think that since the TBD callback API will extend
Future, it'll be compatible in trunk. Based on current downstream input though,
they don't seem interested in a just-Future API since it doesn't support
callbacks.
So, are there any technical reasons why the current Future-based code should be
included in release branches vs. a feature branch? I discussed this in my
earlier comment, and would be interested in hearing counter arguments.
> [umbrella] Asynchronous HDFS Access
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-9924
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9924
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: fs
> Reporter: Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze
> Assignee: Xiaobing Zhou
> Attachments: AsyncHdfs20160510.pdf
>
>
> This is an umbrella JIRA for supporting Asynchronous HDFS Access.
> Currently, all the API methods are blocking calls -- the caller is blocked
> until the method returns. It is very slow if a client makes a large number
> of independent calls in a single thread since each call has to wait until the
> previous call is finished. It is inefficient if a client needs to create a
> large number of threads to invoke the calls.
> We propose adding a new API to support asynchronous calls, i.e. the caller is
> not blocked. The methods in the new API immediately return a Java Future
> object. The return value can be obtained by the usual Future.get() method.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
