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
Elliott Clark 2013-02-22, 17:32
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 supposed
> to
> > > > convert basic java types to byte[]'s, but it does not work for signed
> > > > numbers.
> > > >
> > > > We already know that all of the clients, Hive, Pig, Phoenix, have to
> > have
> > > > at least java type -> byte[] conversion utilities, and I think it is
> > > > HBase's job to supply one so that different clients can interoperate.
> > > Since
> > > > internally we are also relying on serializing java types, we need
> that
> > > > library in the core.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I also think that we need to have a SQL-type to java type to
> > byte[]
> > > > layer, but that is another discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Enis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nick,
> > > > >
> > > > > While I believe having an order-preserving canonical serialization
> > is a
> > > > > good idea,  from doing a read of the mail and a skim of the jira it
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > clear to my why this is inside hbase as part of hbase-common.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why isn't this part of a library on top of hbase (a dependency for
> > > > > Pig/Hive) instead of "inside" hbase?
> > > > > Can't this functionality be done just from the client level?
> > > > > What's the end goal hee? Is the goal here to replace the
> > > Bytes.toBytes(*)
> > > > > methods to enforced the ordering?
> > > > > If I HBase has two mutually incompatible encodings "built-in", how
> > > does a
> > > > > dev know to use one or the other later on?
> > > > > If this is essentially a mega import of a library (300k.. yikes) ,
> > why
> > > > not
> > > > > make it a separate module instead of part of common?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jon.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm of the opinion that HBase should provide a mechanism for
> > > > serializing
> > > > > > common java types such that the serialized format sorts according
> > the
> > > > > > the natural ordering of the type. I think many application
> efforts
> > > end
> > > > up
> > > > > > building a custom, partial implementation of this kind of