Agree. HDFS is not a general purpose file system. Its API was, and
continues to be, co-designed with it's directly adjacent projects (MR,
HBase, Hive, Pig etc) in mind. IMO it's one of it's biggest strengths.
This is of course does not mean we get to ignore existing users,
compatibility concerns,
BTW, thank you Todd and Stack for all your effort in making changes to HDFS
to make it work well with HBase. These changes are very important in making
HDFS better!
On 6/8/11 10:47 AM, "Dhruba Borthakur" wrote:
> I too think that LimitedPrivate is a good idea for projects that work
> closely wi
I too think that LimitedPrivate is a good idea for projects that work
closely with the Hadoop ecosystem (Hive, HBase, MR, etc) It allows us to
experiment with an API, that if proved useful in the longer run, can
graduate to be a public API in future.
Some people may rightly claim that this gives u
I do not see any issue with the change that Todd has made. We have done
similar changes in HDFS-1586 in the past.
Making APIs public comes with a cost. That is what we are avoiding with
LimitedPrivate. The intention was to include the following projects that are
closely tied to Hadoop as projects
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Doug Meil wrote:
>
> Re: "How "closely related" does a project need to be to get this privilege?"
> / " What is the criteria by which an API gets opened to something outside of
> the Hadoop umbrella"
>
> Given the context of the original question, is this debate rea
Hi there-
The following are some thoughts on questions raised in this thread that are
more on the Hadoop-core development process than this particular issue.
Disclosure: I'm active on the HBase dist-list, so Hadoop-core folks can take
my comments with a pinch or two of salt if required.
Re:
