[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2885?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12577021#action_12577021
]
sanjay.radia edited comment on HADOOP-2885 at 3/10/08 12:12 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
All three proposals go towards making the interface explicit. If you look at
the master/parent jira
you will see that it was one of the goals. Interface separation and
compatibility was
one of the major motivations of this jira.
The original proposal (is in the description at the top) is closer to what you,
eric,
are saying (but it was called dfs instead of hdfs).
Also note that even when interface and impl are under one package,
the src of the interface and impl can be in separate src trees. Hence even
though hdfs
is under fs, all three proposals move the server part to a separate src tree.
The three proposal differ in how much of the
HDFS client wrapper is in core src tree. Even proposal 1 which keeps the
wrapper in src/hdfs proposes that there be two jars.
Most of sun's java interfaces and impl has different package roots
(interferface in java.foo and impl in com.sun.xxx.foo,)
The style above (keeping the impl under the same package but in a different src
tree) is not uncommon for apache
projects (as doug tells me). In our case, apache is the interface publisher and
also the impl publisher.
was (Author: sanjay.radia):
All three proposals go towards making the interface cleaner. If you look at
the master/parent jira
you will see that it was one of the goals. For me the interface separation and
compatibility was
one of the major motivations.
The original proposal (is in the description at the top) is closer to what you
are saying (but it was called dfs instead of hdfs).
Also note that even when interface and impl are under one package,
the src of the interface and impl can be in separate src trees. Hence even
though hdfs
is under fs, all three proposals move the server part in a separate src tree.
The three proposal differs how much of the
HDFS client wrapper is in core src tree. Even proposal 1 which keeps the
wrapper in src/hdfs proposes that there
be two jars.
Most of sun's java interfaces and impl has different package roots
(interferface in java.foo and impl in com.sun.xxx.foo,)
The style above (keeping the impl under the same package but in a different src
tree) is not uncommon for apache
projects (as doug tells me) because apache is the interface publisher and also
the impl publisher.
> Restructure the hadoop.dfs package
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-2885
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2885
> Project: Hadoop Core
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: dfs
> Reporter: Sanjay Radia
> Assignee: Sanjay Radia
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.17.0
>
> Attachments: Prototype dfs package.png
>
>
> This Jira proposes restructurign the package hadoop.dfs.
> 1. Move all server side and internal protocols (NN-DD etc) to
> hadoop.dfs.server.*
> 2. Further breakdown of dfs.server.
> - dfs.server.namenode.*
> - dfs.server.datanode.*
> - dfs.server.balancer.*
> - dfs.server.common.* - stuff shared between the various servers
> - dfs.protocol.* - internal protocol between DN, NN and Balancer etc.
> 3. Client interface:
> - hadoop.dfs.DistributedFileSystem.java
> - hadoop.dfs.ChecksumDistributedFileSystem.java
> - hadoop.dfs.HftpFilesystem.java
> - hadoop.dfs.protocol.* - the client side protocol
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
