Lars, Andrew, Michael, This particular discussion isn't bearing fruit for the user@hbase audience. If you wish to continue it, especially with the current tone, please do so on dev@.
Michael, IANAL but the ASF offers indemnification as a means of encouraging development and adoption of the projects it hosts. If you'd like to know about the specific protections afforded you as a contributor please take it up with legal@apache. -- Sean On Apr 11, 2015 12:59 PM, "Michael Segel" <michael_se...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well Lars, looks like that hypoxia has set in… > > If you’ve paid attention, its not that I’m against server side > extensibility. > > Its how its been implemented which is a bit brain dead. > > I suggest you think more about why having end user code running in the > same JVM as the RS is not a good thing. > (Which is why in Feb. Andrew made a patch that allowed one to turn off the > coprocessor function completely or after the system coprocessors loaded. ) > > The sad truth is that you could have run the coprocessor code in a > separate JVM. > You have to remember coprocessors are triggers, stored procedures and > extensibility all rolled in to one. > > As to providing a patch… will you indemnify me if I get sued? ;-) > Didn’t think so. > > > On Apr 9, 2015, at 10:13 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> if you lecture people and call them stupid (as you did in an earlier > email) > > He said (quote) "committers are suffering from rectal induced hypoxia", > we can let that pass as "stupid", I think. :)Maybe Michael can explain some > day what "rectal induced hypoxia" is. I'm dying to know what I suffer from. > > > > In any case and in all seriousness. Michael, feel free to educate > yourself about what the intended use of coprocessors is - preferably before > you come here and start an argument ... again. We're more than happy to > accept a patch from you with a "correct" implementation. > > > > Can we just let this thread die? It didn't start with a useful > proposition. > > > > -- Lars > > > > From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > > To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org> > > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 4:53 PM > > Subject: Re: Rowkey design question > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> Hint: You could have sandboxed the end user code which makes it a lot > >> easier to manage. > >> > > > > I filed the fucking JIRA for that. Look at HBASE-4047. As a matter of > > social grace, if you lecture people and call them stupid (as you did in > an > > earlier email) while making the same fucking argument the other person > > made, this doesn't work. > > > > The reason I never did finish HBASE-4047 is I didn't need to. Nobody here > > or where I worked, ultimately, was banging down the door for an external > > coprocessor host. What we have works well enough for people today. > > > > If you do think the external coprocessor host is essential, try taking on > > the actual engineering challenges involved. Hint: They are not easy. Put > up > > a patch. Writing words in an email is easy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitive > thought, that is purely accidental. > Use at your own risk. > Michael Segel > michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > > > > > >
