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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Review request for HBASE-7692: Ordered byte[] serialization


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Review request for HBASE-7692: Ordered byte[] serialization
I think I misspoke slightly but basically agree with Matt's notion that
this would end up being the place to pickup the orderly jar and that
ideally it has no hbase-* dependencies.

I actually feel that the hbase-orderly module is a sibling to hbase-common
and hbase-client. My initial thought is that this is ideally not depended
upon by the hbase-client.  An app would use hbase-orderly and hbase-client.
 A simplified module dependency graph (excluding some details) would be
(where -> == "depends on")

app -> hbase-client, hbase-orderly
hbase-client -> hbase-protocol, hbase-common, *-compat
hbase-common -> none of the hbase-*
hbase-orderly -> none of the hbase-*

I'm don't quite understand what the multiple patches are for the module
work (or is this follow on stuff that uses this)?  can you explain what the
breakdown would be?  since it isn't committed yet and should be self
contained, just do the big import as a single patch?

Thanks for bring this up for discussion Nick.

Jon.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Matt Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > To nitpick a little it wouldn't quite be a sibling of hbase-client
> because
> > hbase-client depends on hbase-common and hbase-protocol
> >
>
> Actually, quite the contrary. I don't see this as being an external module
> as much as integral to the client's use of HBase (read "client" as
> "application consuming HBase", not "the HBase RPC client implementation").
> Further, once HBase provides a suitable serialization format for
> primitives, why not push them into the client API? IMHO, HBase really
> should provide basic types for users at the Mutation layer. That, however,
> belongs in an entirely separate ticket.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yep the client will be fully separated as soon as rpc changes
> > > are stabilized.  Until then keeping up the move patch was just too
> > onerous.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nick,
> > > >
> > > > I'm +1 for it having its own module, and being a sibling of
> > hbase-client.
> > > >  I'm assuming the client stuff will happen before we release 0.96
> since
> > > it
> > > > has been started.
> > > >
> > > > Jon.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You're absolutely correct: this library introduces client-side
> > > > conventions
> > > > > and is not needed from within the HMaster or RegionServer. Is
> > > > > the consensus that it should reside in it's own module or be a
> > sibling
> > > to
> > > > > the o.a.h.hbase.client source tree? I'm a little confused by the
> > > current
> > > > > state of the modules; hbase-client looks empty while
> > o.a.h.hbase.client
> > > > > sits under hbase-server.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So I buy the argument about this being included in hbase, but
> > several
> > > > of
> > > > > > the questions still stand --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is this part of hbase-common?  shouldn't this be just a
> > > dependency
> > > > of
> > > > > > hbase-client module?  Does the hbase-server side need to depend
> on
> > > > this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since this is a large import of a currently isolated library, why
> > not
> > > > > make
> > > > > > it a separate module instead of part of hbase-common?  This would
> > > > > enforce a
> > > > > > boundary that will prevent pollution from circular dependencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this belongs in core HBase, as a replacement to Bytes,
> > > which
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be deprecated eventually. We have a Bytes utility which is

// Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
// Software Engineer, Cloudera
// [EMAIL PROTECTED]