I have some concerns over the recent usage of LimitedPrivate being
opened up to HBase. Shouldn't HBase really be sticking to public APIs rather
than poking through some holes? If HBase needs an API, wouldn't other clients
as well?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>
>I have some concerns over the recent usage of LimitedPrivate being
> opened up to HBase. Shouldn't HBase really be sticking to public APIs
> rather than poking through some holes? If HBase needs an API, wouldn't
> other client
On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have some concerns over the recent usage of LimitedPrivate being
>> opened up to HBase. Shouldn't HBase really be sticking to public APIs
>> rather than poking through
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>
> I have some concerns over the recent usage of LimitedPrivate being
> opened up to HBase. Shouldn't HBase really be sticking to public APIs rather
> than poking through some holes? If HBase needs an API, wouldn't other
> clie
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Stack wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>>
>>
>>I have some concerns over the recent usage of LimitedPrivate being
>> opened up to HBase. Shouldn't HBase really be sticking to public APIs
>> rather than poking through some
On Mon, 6/6/11, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> So, no, HBase does not actually use public APIs
We could instead cut and paste the code in question here from Hadoop and modify
it for our purposes. (This was done for RPC, earlier.)
However other Hadoop-ish daemons may well want to extend Http
On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>
> Perhaps opening a jira for a cleaner framework for HttpServer extension could
> be useful?
Sure. That's probably what should have happened to begin with rather
than the quickly changing the API to a different classification. I was
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps opening a jira for a cleaner framework for HttpServer extension
> could be useful?
>
> Sure. That's probably what should have happened to begin with
> rather than
On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Or because this is the sort of thing that could take weeks of discussion or
> just 5 minutes to unblock HBase from moving on to trunk. I'd rather have the
> weeks of discussion *after* the 5 minute patch, so people can continue to
> make progress.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
> > Or because this is the sort of thing that could take weeks of discussion
> or
> > just 5 minutes to unblock HBase from moving on to trunk. I'd rather have
> the
> > weeks of discussion
On Jun 6, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's face it: this happened because it was HBase. If it was almost
>> anyone else, it would have sat there and *that's* the point where I'm
>> mainly concerned.
>
>
> If you want to feel better, take a look at HDFS-941, HDFS-34
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>These cases don't appear to be about re-classification of an API
> from private to semi-public. So no, I'm not. None of these appear to
> answer the base set of question:
>
>
In the specific case of HttpServer, this API *used* to
On Jun 6, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
>
> Nah, I just think these "meta discussions" waste an awful lot of time that's
> better spent making real progress on the code, or reviewing the complex
> changes where extra eyes really make a big difference.
OK. That's make it easier t
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
>
>But if this reclassification had been with anything else outside of
> the Hadoop project, I would have asked the same thing. It raises important
> questions that we as a project need to answer.
"Life's not fair".:-) (couldn't res
14 matches
Mail list logo
