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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - Data types stage 1 is ready for reivew


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Data types stage 1 is ready for reivew
Michael Segel 2013-08-03, 17:33
Uhm...

Ok.

Silly question.

How do you plan on enforcing data types within the engine?

I did a quick read of the Jira, and there is a question of design philosophy that should be discussed.
On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Matt Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Looks great to me.  Without the strict dependencies on hadoop or hbase
> it'll be easy to pull into its own standalone module or new project if
> there's demand.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Finally-for-real-this-time patches posted. I'll take your +1's any time now
>> ;)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> As of yesterday, I've posted "final" patched on both HBASE-8201<
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8201>and
>>> HBASE-8693 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8693>. The
>> former
>>> specifies on-disk format and the latter is the user-facing API. If you've
>>> already left me a review, thank you; please have another look at these
>>> patches. If you have an opinion here and haven't voiced it, we're
>>> approaching the "forever hold your peace" part of the ceremony.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for having a look. If you don't mind terribly, I responded to
>> your
>>>> comments on JIRA [0].
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> [0]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8693#comment-13711250
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was looking at the HBASE-8693 patch, and looks good to me for the
>>>>> primitive types.
>>>>> but I can't see how do you plan to evolve stuff like the struct.
>>>>> By "evolve" I mean add/remove fields, or just query it with a subset of
>>>>> fields.
>>>>> the fields don't have an id, and on read you must specify all of them
>> in
>>>>> the same order as you've used for write.
>>>>> (but maybe is just an immutable/fixed list of fields, and I'm ok with
>>>>> just
>>>>> adding that info to the comment on top of the class)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matteo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> New patch posted. What do you think about the new isSkippable() and
>> the
>>>>>> associated limitation in Struct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also posted some "dogfeed" per Enis's suggestion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -n
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did some chatting with Nick today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is really important to get this right, and for that we
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> definitely need more eyes towards it. The current patch set is
>> in a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> state to bolster the discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll do another pass (Kicking others to give it a looksee too).
>>>>>>> St.Ack
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>