+1. Anyway all mutations extends OperationsWithAttributes also.
Regards
Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Sam John [mailto:anoo...@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Retrieve Put timestamp
>
> Currently in Append there is a setter to specify whether to return the
> result or not. Similar way we can use for Put? Only with specific use
> cases the return TS might be needed.
> May be in a generic way we can return the attributes of the Mutation?
> So any thing which the client needs back can be added into the
> attributes [Any byte[] value]
> and we can return the same to client [If the flag is turned on] User
> can add these attributes using pre/post CP hooks.
>
> -Anoop-
> ________________________________________
> From: saint....@gmail.com [saint....@gmail.com] on behalf of Stack
> [st...@duboce.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:41 AM
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Retrieve Put timestamp
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Wei Tan <w...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > We have a similar requirement and here is the solution in our mind:
> > add a coprocessor, in prePut() get the current ms and set it to put -
> --
> > the current implementation get the current ms and set it in put()
> > return the ms generated to prePut() to client. For now put() does not
> > return any value. we need to change the behavior of it
> >
> > Any flaw in this design?
>
> In 0.96 we have moved to protobufs. The put/mutate call currently
> doesn't return anything:
>
> message MutateResponse {
> optional Result result = 1;
>
> // used for mutate to indicate processed only
> optional bool processed = 2;
> }
>
> Should be easy enough changing it to run timestamps? Should it do it
> always or should we return the request so you have to ask for it?
>
> St.Ack=
