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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98
+1 Lars

I think it makes sense to take your experience with using the client in app
servers into API improvements.

> Love the quiz.

+1 nice illustration

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:56 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let's do a little quiz:
> >
> > HTable t1 = new HTable(conf);
> > t1.close();
> >
> > // 1. Will the next line create a new HConnection behind the scenes
> (along
> > with re-creating all the caches)?
> > // (If so, it will be expensive, if not, when is the first HConnection
> > actually released?)
> > HTable t2 = new HTable(conf);
> >
> > // 2. how about this one?
> > HTable t2 = new HTable(new Configuration(conf));
> >
> > // 3. or now?
> > conf.setInt(HConstants.HBASE_CLIENT_PAUSE, 2000);
> > HTable t3 = new HTable(conf);
> >
> > // 4. and now?
> > conf.setInt(HBASE_CLIENT_SCANNER_MAX_RESULT_SIZE_KEY, 1024000);
> > HTable t4 = new HTable(conf);
> >
> > // 5. how many connections are opened now?
> > t4.close();
> >
> > This stuff is convoluted and needlessly complicated. And this is not
> > because the code is bad, but because the abstraction is simply
> inadequate.
> > A client wants to connect to a cluster and then do some action on that
> > cluster (via HTable as a convenience).
> > If the cluster connection is implicit it leads to all of the above
> > considerations.
> >
> >
> Love the quiz.
>
> +1 on your redo of our connection model (HConnection is a "cluster
> connection".  I like that you have to get one of these first...)
>
> St.Ack
>

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)