Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Data types stage 1 is ready for reivew


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Data types stage 1 is ready for reivew
Looks great to me.  Without the strict dependencies on hadoop or hbase
it'll be easy to pull into its own standalone module or new project if
there's demand.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Finally-for-real-this-time patches posted. I'll take your +1's any time now
> ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As of yesterday, I've posted "final" patched on both HBASE-8201<
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8201>and
> > HBASE-8693 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8693>. The
> former
> > specifies on-disk format and the latter is the user-facing API. If you've
> > already left me a review, thank you; please have another look at these
> > patches. If you have an opinion here and haven't voiced it, we're
> > approaching the "forever hold your peace" part of the ceremony.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for having a look. If you don't mind terribly, I responded to
> your
> >> comments on JIRA [0].
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> [0]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8693#comment-13711250
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> I was looking at the HBASE-8693 patch, and looks good to me for the
> >>> primitive types.
> >>> but I can't see how do you plan to evolve stuff like the struct.
> >>> By "evolve" I mean add/remove fields, or just query it with a subset of
> >>> fields.
> >>> the fields don't have an id, and on read you must specify all of them
> in
> >>> the same order as you've used for write.
> >>> (but maybe is just an immutable/fixed list of fields, and I'm ok with
> >>> just
> >>> adding that info to the comment on top of the class)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Matteo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > New patch posted. What do you think about the new isSkippable() and
> the
> >>> > associated limitation in Struct?
> >>> >
> >>> > I also posted some "dogfeed" per Enis's suggestion.
> >>> >
> >>> > -n
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Did some chatting with Nick today.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I think it is really important to get this right, and for that we
> >>> would
> >>> > > > definitely need more eyes towards it. The current patch set is
> in a
> >>> > good
> >>> > > > state to bolster the discussion.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I'll do another pass (Kicking others to give it a looksee too).
> >>> > > St.Ack
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>