[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15515709#comment-15515709 ]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921: ------------------------------- bq. For batch operation, I think we should still start from beginning as regions maybe moved... Yes, but if we still use a unified array for the overall results, this "start from beginning" could be a regroup-and-submit action only for the *failed* actions. bq. And for scan, as now we have heartbeat which makes it different from other operations, we would better revisit the timeout semantic of it. Agreed, async scan is something I still haven't touched in my local implementation. > Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-15921 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 2.0.0 > Reporter: Jurriaan Mous > Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch, > HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch > > > First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan > functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor > of existing scans. > Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl > internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops > to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the > AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)