[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12910?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15318747#comment-15318747
]
stack commented on HADOOP-12910:
--------------------------------
Why the insistence on doing the async twice? Once for branch-2 and then with a
totally different API in branch-3? Wouldn't doing it once be better all around
given it is tricky at the best of times getting async correct and performant?
Why do the work in branch-2 and then go keep it private, '.... if it gets
complicated...'.? Where does that leave willing contributors/users like
[~Apache9] (see his note above)?
Why invent an API (based on AWT experience with mouse-moved listeners (?))
rather than take on a proven one whose author is trying to help here and whose
API surface is considerably less than the CompletableFuture kitchen-sink?
> Add new FileSystem API to support asynchronous method calls
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-12910
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12910
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: fs
> Reporter: Tsz Wo Nicholas Sze
> Assignee: Xiaobing Zhou
> Attachments: HADOOP-12910-HDFS-9924.000.patch,
> HADOOP-12910-HDFS-9924.001.patch, HADOOP-12910-HDFS-9924.002.patch
>
>
> Add a new API, namely FutureFileSystem (or AsynchronousFileSystem, if it is a
> better name). All the APIs in FutureFileSystem are the same as FileSystem
> except that the return type is wrapped by Future, e.g.
> {code}
> //FileSystem
> public boolean rename(Path src, Path dst) throws IOException;
> //FutureFileSystem
> public Future<Boolean> rename(Path src, Path dst) throws IOException;
> {code}
> Note that FutureFileSystem does not extend FileSystem.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
