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 a...@apache.org 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
On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org 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
On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Stack wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org 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 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 a
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Allen Wittenauer a...@apache.org 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
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-347, and
