[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2269?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16518235#comment-16518235
]
Fahd Siddiqui commented on SENTRY-2269:
---------------------------------------
[~akolb] - There is already a disclaimer, along with the {{@Private}}
annotation on the interface that makes it clear that the interface can break at
any time.
>> In this case SentryStore *is* the interface and existing SentryStore is an
>>implementation
Agreed. And that's why SentryStoreInterface is simply a reflection of
SentryStore.
>> instead of creating {{SentryStoreInterface}} and having {{SentryStore}} as
>>its implementation it should be another way around
This isn't clear to me. What do you mean by "another way around"? Are you
suggesting to swap the names around, so {{SentryStoreInterface}} ->
{{SentryStore}}, and then {{SentryStore}} -> {{SentryStoreImpl }}?
> Make SentryStore pluggable
> --------------------------
>
> Key: SENTRY-2269
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2269
> Project: Sentry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: sentrystore
> Affects Versions: 2.1.0
> Reporter: Fahd Siddiqui
> Assignee: Fahd Siddiqui
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: SENTRY-2269.1.patch
>
>
> Make SentryStore pluggable so a different implementation can be plugged in at
> run-time using a config property ("sentry.service.sentrystore"), similar to
> what we have for processor factories.
> This would entail extracting all public methods of SentryStore to a
> SentryStoreInterface and converting all call sites to program to the
> interface.
> It will default to the existing SentryStore.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
