[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13265072#comment-13265072
]
stack commented on HBASE-5905:
------------------------------
Sorry N, should have read closer (was running out the door):
bq. In other words, it seems that we merged the two interfaces into a single
one. Is that the intend?
Yes
bq. I checked, the internal fields in closeRegionRequest are all optional
(that's good). Still, it means that the end user could use them or at least
would need to distinguish between the "optional for functional reasons" and the
"optional - do not use".
Agree.
I'd say this minor issue though given pb classes do not come out through pur
admin public api, just the api on servers.
> Protobuf interface for Admin: split between the internal and the
> external/customer interface
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-5905
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5905
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: client, master, regionserver
> Affects Versions: 0.96.0
> Reporter: nkeywal
>
> After a short discussion with Stack, I create a jira.
> --
> I'am a little bit confused by the protobuf interface for closeRegion.
> We have two types of closeRegion today:
> 1) the external ones; available in client.HBaseAdmin. They take the server
> and the region identifier as a parameter and nothing else.
> 2) The internal ones, called for example by the master. They have more
> parameters (like versionOfClosingNode or transitionInZK).
> When I look at protobuf.ProtobufUtil, I see:
> public static void closeRegion(final AdminProtocol admin,
> final byte[] regionName, final boolean transitionInZK) throws
> IOException {
> CloseRegionRequest closeRegionRequest =
> RequestConverter.buildCloseRegionRequest(regionName, transitionInZK);
> try {
> admin.closeRegion(null, closeRegionRequest);
> } catch (ServiceException se) {
> throw getRemoteException(se);
> }
> }
> In other words, it seems that we merged the two interfaces into a single one.
> Is that the intend?
> I checked, the internal fields in closeRegionRequest are all optional (that's
> good). Still, it means that the end user could use them or at least would
> need to distinguish between the "optional for functional reasons" and the
> "optional - do not use".
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
