[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13642597#comment-13642597
]
Sanjay Radia commented on HADOOP-9357:
--------------------------------------
Andrew, the challenge I am having is that FileSystem has a bogus incorrect
solution since it is taking the authority from the default file system iff the
scheme matches.
The URI RFC can assert that a notion of default authority is sensible because
one can arrange for a default for each of the schemes.
To pick the default form the default fs (which is a hadoop concept that is not
necessarily translatable to URIs in general) is what I am not happy about.
I have a concern with allowing folks to move from FS to FC for a usage pattern
that we believe is incorrect (as outlined by me above) and which we want to
discourage
(since /path is better then hdfs:///path).
The only merit I see is compatibility -- FS allowed it (even though it was
incorrect) and hence FC should allow it.
Wouldn't you want folks to catch the hdfs:///path and change it to /path if
that is what they really intended?
What do others think?
> Fallback to default authority if not specified in FileContext
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-9357
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9357
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0-alpha
> Reporter: Andrew Wang
> Assignee: Andrew Wang
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: hadoop-9357-1.patch, hadoop-9357-2.patch,
> hadoop-9357-3.patch, hadoop-9357-testfixup.patch
>
>
> Currently, FileContext adheres rather strictly to RFC2396 when it comes to
> parsing absolute URIs (URIs with a scheme). If a user asks for a URI like
> "hdfs:///tmp", FileContext will error while FileSystem will add the authority
> of the default FS (e.g. turn it into "hdfs://defaultNN:port/tmp").
> This is technically correct, but FileSystem's behavior is nicer for users and
> okay based on 5.2.3 in the RFC, so lets do it in FileContext too:
> {noformat}
> For backwards
> compatibility, an implementation may work around such references
> by removing the scheme if it matches that of the base URI and the
> scheme is known to always use the syntax. The parser
> can then continue with the steps below for the remainder of the
> reference components. Validating parsers should mark such a
> misformed relative reference as an error.
> {noformat}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
