[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8015?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13689812#comment-13689812
]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-8015:
--------------------------------------
One problem with option 4 is that we want to pay the price of migration only
one between 0.94->0.96. If we do that, then it means we have to carry the
exception tables code for all the releases going forward. Option 1 better than
this I think? Note that surprise #1 also applies here as well.
bq. Sounds like we are going with overloading all the existing apis to take a
namespace parameter. If so what would be the behavior when using the old api?
Will it always reference default namespace or will we support fully qualified
table names?
It should use the default ns. I think the idea is that there will not be a
public facing thing called "fully qualified table name" in Elliot's approach.
Although internally, we will need one, hence my tendency to go with option 2
over 3 (see my above comment): "namespace,table" seems good enough for me.
> Support for Namespaces
> ----------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-8015
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8015
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Francis Liu
> Assignee: Francis Liu
> Attachments: HBASE-8015_draft_94.patch, Namespace Design.pdf
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
