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
Thanks Nick for carrying this through.

My pledge to reviewers: if you disagree with putting orderly in its own
module, please express your idea now.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm working through the code that will produce a patch placing orderly in
> its own module. A question to reviewers: would you prefer I create separate
> JIRA/tasks for each of the individual patches? Will that be easier to
> review than dumping my squashed patch onto this ticket and asking you to
> look at github? Having this broken out into multiple tickets, I would feel
> better about using review board to aggregate comments.
>
> Please advise.
> Nick
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Matt Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Not quite true. It makes use of Bytes and ImmutableBytesWritable from
> >> > hbase-common.
> >>
> >> Oh, interesting.  Could we inline the code from Bytes.java and somehow
> get
> >> rid of the ImmutableBytesWritable.  Like calling packages can add
> >> ImmutableBytesWritable functionality on top if they want to?
> >
> >
> > I'll need to do a more thorough evaluation, but a cursory glance
> indicates
> > use of Bytes could be replaced by arraycopy. ImmutableBytesWritable is
> used
> > mostly as a convenient wrapper over byte[], and may well
> > be replaceable with Hadoop's BytesWritable.
> >
> > Seems like something as low level as rearranging bytes should be
> >> dependency free.
> >>
> >
> > The implementation makes heavy use of Hadoop Writables, but the
> > dependencies on HBase instances are mostly convenience.
> >
> >  On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Inline.
> >> >
> >> > 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 while this
> new
> >> > one
> >> > > will not depend on anything.  Would hbase-server be able to see it?
> >> >  Would
> >> > > it basically be a standalone module being maintained by HBase?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Not quite true. It makes use of Bytes and ImmutableBytesWritable from
> >> > hbase-common.
> >> >
> >> > Also, assuming the original Orderly library goes unmaintained and we
> >> want
> >> > > people to use it, this will be the primary place to get it.  Having
> no
> >> > > dependencies on other hbase modules is important for people who want
> >> to
> >> > use
> >> > > the Orderly library for something unrelated to hbase.  For example,
> a
> >> web
> >> > > application that logs data in this format but not directly to hbase.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Orderly has gone unmaintained. The only fork with any activity that
> I'm
> >> > aware of is my own. I'd much rather see it gain the publicity,
> >> > additional scrutiny, wider adoption than continue as a pet-project.
> >> >
> >> > 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