This sounds interesting. I cannot comment on the research / paper aspects
of your work, but from my experience, there are different considerations
for implementing something for research and the open source side of things.
If you are interested in getting your work into the project, the best way
might not be forking the project now, and sometime later, pointing to the
forked code, which will have a lot of core changes. And it will be
extremely difficult to merge your code back.
Again, if you are interested in contributing back, I would suggest, opening
a jira, and describing the problem you are trying to solve, with a high
level roadmap of the changes. Then, if there is some interest, PMC can even
create a branch in svn, or you can manage a branch yourself. Then you can
open subtasks, for each discrete change you propose, and work on that.
This will also guarantee, that at least some parts of your work can be
merged back, and the committers can easily evaluate your patches.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:25 AM, erwin x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Thank you for all your enthusiastic responses!
> I already started to hack the HBase security source code a litte bit,
> but I think a separate project using co-processors is indeed a good
> idea. I can then create a separate solution for the research problem
> using as much as possible of the existing (security) code.
> It is possible that during my research, in the mean time some features
> could be implemented by other developers. Although I perhaps could
> actively help developing, it makes it difficult to do independent research,
> as the requirements are a lit bit different that current solutions,
> and it takes some time to create a complete solution for the
> research problem (roughly described in first mail).
> Therefore I think I propose the project when it is completed,
> so you can look if there are some interesting features/results.
> I saw various Jira issues that relate to my research, except
> HBase-6222 as it was created this weekend :) Thank you
> for mentioning that. When some issues are still open at the
> end of my research, I perhaps can relate them to my research.
> I will now continue with my research and will return to you
> if I have some updates. It is good to know that there is
> some interest in the research :)
> Kind regards,
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > HBASE-1697, apologies for that.
> > On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > I'd also encourage you to read HBASE-1637 and subtasks to see what has
> > already gone in and how it was implemented basically as Joey had
> > If you reimplement something the first question that will be asked is
> > part of HBase code can be reused I.e incremental dev is preferred where
> > possible.
> > >
> > > Your work sounds interesting and also challenging as it seems you may
> > have to substantially hack the DFSClient as well as HBase.
> > >
> > > - Andy
> > >
> > > On Jun 17, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi erwinx,
> > >>
> > >> Sounds interesting to me!
> > >>
> > >> If your purposes are to research/a paper, I'm always a fan of
> > >> some time to define the problem (something constrained to 2 pages
> > be
> > >> good) you are trying to solve. I find it personally helpful to myself
> > and
> > >> it would help us greatly if you ask us for implementation advice!
> > >> that I'd following Joey's advice as an implementation avenue -- start
> > >> hacking using the coprocessor interface.
> > >>
> > >> Does your goal also includes potential integration as part of HBase?
> > >>
> > >> The threat model sketch you are assuming sounds interesting. Up to
> > >> point, our threat model is roughly gives the attacker only the ability
> > to
> > >> make arbitrary rpcs, the ability to sniff client traffic, but also