[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3777?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13022627#comment-13022627 ]
Ted Yu commented on HBASE-3777: ------------------------------- TestHBaseTestingUtility.multiClusters() should be improved with a catch block. Previously we faced timeout exception when in fact the cause was TableExistsException. I propose adding the following before the finally block: {code} } catch (Exception e) { LOG.error("multiClusters failed: ", e); } {code} BTW, TestHBaseTestingUtility and TestReplication both passed with the above addition of HConstants.ZOOKEEPER_ZNODE_PARENT We should document HConnectionKey.CONNECTION_PROPERTIES so that developers know where to add new uniquifiers. > Redefine Identity Of HBase Configuration > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-3777 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3777 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: client, ipc > Affects Versions: 0.90.2 > Reporter: Karthick Sankarachary > Assignee: Karthick Sankarachary > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 0.92.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-3777-V2.patch, HBASE-3777-V3.patch, > HBASE-3777-V4.patch, HBASE-3777.patch > > > Judging from the javadoc in {{HConnectionManager}}, sharing connections > across multiple clients going to the same cluster is supposedly a good thing. > However, the fact that there is a one-to-one mapping between a configuration > and connection instance, kind of works against that goal. Specifically, when > you create {{HTable}} instances using a given {{Configuration}} instance and > a copy thereof, we end up with two distinct {{HConnection}} instances under > the covers. Is this really expected behavior, especially given that the > configuration instance gets cloned a lot? > Here, I'd like to play devil's advocate and propose that we "deep-compare" > {{HBaseConfiguration}} instances, so that multiple {{HBaseConfiguration}} > instances that have the same properties map to the same {{HConnection}} > instance. In case one is "concerned that a single {{HConnection}} is > insufficient for sharing amongst clients", to quote the javadoc, then one > should be able to mark a given {{HBaseConfiguration}} instance as being > "uniquely identifiable". > Note that "sharing connections makes clean up of {{HConnection}} instances a > little awkward", unless of course, you apply the change described in > HBASE-3766. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira