I've been furiously finishing the Proxy.  Please take some time to review
the Thrift API: making changes to it in the future will be difficult.

-Eric

Eric,

I have started looking at the code, and it looks good.  The tests have good
code coverage.

Some comments...

>From an API standpoint, why did you split out the Ranges in the
createBatchScanner and not split out the Range in the createScanner.  IMO,
these should be consistent.  My preference would be for both to use their
respective *ScanOptions object to hold the ranges.

public String createBatchScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
List<org.apache.accumulo.proxy.thrift.Range> pranges, BatchScanOptions opts)

public String createScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
ScanOptions opts)

Thanks Eric.  Other than those comments. I think this looks great and will
be very useful.

--Jason
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've been furiously finishing the Proxy.  Please take some time to review
> the Thrift API: making changes to it in the future will be difficult.
>
> -Eric
>

In the client API, you *must* set ranges on a batch scanner.  I wanted to
reflect that requirement in the proxy API.

For about an hour yesterday, the range list was in the batch scanner
Options.  Anyone else want it moved?

And, if the range list is empty, we should just use the entire table?

-Eric
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jason Trost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I have started looking at the code, and it looks good.  The tests have good
> code coverage.
>
> Some comments...
>
> From an API standpoint, why did you split out the Ranges in the
> createBatchScanner and not split out the Range in the createScanner.  IMO,
> these should be consistent.  My preference would be for both to use their
> respective *ScanOptions object to hold the ranges.
>
> public String createBatchScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> List<org.apache.accumulo.proxy.thrift.Range> pranges, BatchScanOptions
> opts)
>
> public String createScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> ScanOptions opts)
>
> Thanks Eric.  Other than those comments. I think this looks great and will
> be very useful.
>
> --Jason
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I've been furiously finishing the Proxy.  Please take some time to review
> > the Thrift API: making changes to it in the future will be difficult.
> >
> > -Eric
> >
>

+1 for defaulting to the entire table

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In the client API, you *must* set ranges on a batch scanner.  I wanted to
> reflect that requirement in the proxy API.
>
> For about an hour yesterday, the range list was in the batch scanner
> Options.  Anyone else want it moved?
>
> And, if the range list is empty, we should just use the entire table?
>
> -Eric
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jason Trost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > I have started looking at the code, and it looks good.  The tests have
> good
> > code coverage.
> >
> > Some comments...
> >
> > From an API standpoint, why did you split out the Ranges in the
> > createBatchScanner and not split out the Range in the createScanner.
>  IMO,
> > these should be consistent.  My preference would be for both to use their
> > respective *ScanOptions object to hold the ranges.
> >
> > public String createBatchScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> > List<org.apache.accumulo.proxy.thrift.Range> pranges, BatchScanOptions
> > opts)
> >
> > public String createScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> > ScanOptions opts)
> >
> > Thanks Eric.  Other than those comments. I think this looks great and
> will
> > be very useful.
> >
> > --Jason
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've been furiously finishing the Proxy.  Please take some time to
> review
> > > the Thrift API: making changes to it in the future will be difficult.
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > >
> >
>

agree with chris
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 for defaulting to the entire table
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > In the client API, you *must* set ranges on a batch scanner.  I wanted to
> > reflect that requirement in the proxy API.
> >
> > For about an hour yesterday, the range list was in the batch scanner
> > Options.  Anyone else want it moved?
> >
> > And, if the range list is empty, we should just use the entire table?
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jason Trost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric,
> > >
> > > I have started looking at the code, and it looks good.  The tests have
> > good
> > > code coverage.
> > >
> > > Some comments...
> > >
> > > From an API standpoint, why did you split out the Ranges in the
> > > createBatchScanner and not split out the Range in the createScanner.
> >  IMO,
> > > these should be consistent.  My preference would be for both to use
> their
> > > respective *ScanOptions object to hold the ranges.
> > >
> > > public String createBatchScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> > > List<org.apache.accumulo.proxy.thrift.Range> pranges, BatchScanOptions
> > > opts)
> > >
> > > public String createScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> > > ScanOptions opts)
> > >
> > > Thanks Eric.  Other than those comments. I think this looks great and
> > will
> > > be very useful.
> > >
> > > --Jason
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been furiously finishing the Proxy.  Please take some time to
> > review
> > > > the Thrift API: making changes to it in the future will be difficult.
> > > >
> > > > -Eric
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Ok, I'm convinced.  I've checked this in.

-Eric

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> agree with chris
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for defaulting to the entire table
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In the client API, you *must* set ranges on a batch scanner.  I wanted
> to
> > > reflect that requirement in the proxy API.
> > >
> > > For about an hour yesterday, the range list was in the batch scanner
> > > Options.  Anyone else want it moved?
> > >
> > > And, if the range list is empty, we should just use the entire table?
> > >
> > > -Eric
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jason Trost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric,
> > > >
> > > > I have started looking at the code, and it looks good.  The tests
> have
> > > good
> > > > code coverage.
> > > >
> > > > Some comments...
> > > >
> > > > From an API standpoint, why did you split out the Ranges in the
> > > > createBatchScanner and not split out the Range in the createScanner.
> > >  IMO,
> > > > these should be consistent.  My preference would be for both to use
> > their
> > > > respective *ScanOptions object to hold the ranges.
> > > >
> > > > public String createBatchScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> > > > List<org.apache.accumulo.proxy.thrift.Range> pranges,
> BatchScanOptions
> > > > opts)
> > > >
> > > > public String createScanner(UserPass userpass, String tableName,
> > > > ScanOptions opts)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Eric.  Other than those comments. I think this looks great and
> > > will
> > > > be very useful.
> > > >
> > > > --Jason
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Eric Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've been furiously finishing the Proxy.  Please take some time to
> > > review
> > > > > the Thrift API: making changes to it in the future will be
> difficult.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Eric
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>