On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that's even more problematic. We go from having, by default, a > short wait, by default to no wait by default and then a flag which provides > a long wait and no ability to get the short wait. I'm not disagreeing that > it should be done, but these are still behavior changes to old APIs. >
Can you show me in the code where a behavior change occurred? I do not see one. In 1.5 and 1.6 offline(table) both only call doTableOperation(TableOperation.OFFLINE, args, opts). In 1.6 calling offline(table, true) will call doTableOperation(TableOperation.OFFLINE, args, opts) AND waitForTableStateTransition(tableId, TableState.OFFLINE). > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I disagree. The 1.5.0 code path waits by default. Offline() calls > >> doTableOperation, which calls doTableOperation with wait=true, which > >> causes waitForTableOperation to trigger. Unless there's weird casing > >> for waitForTableOperation, of which there does not appear to be, it will > >> wait. > >> > > > > In 1.5 and 1.4 its only waiting for the master to change the table state > > in zookeeper. Its not waiting for all of the tablets to go offline. > Take > > a look at o.a.a.s.master.tableOps.ChangeTableState, this is what gets > > executed on the master. > > > > 1.6 adds the ability to wait for all tablets to go offline. > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> It has recently come to my attention that the default behavior for > >>>> TableOperations.offline(table) to immediately return. There is now an > >>>> additional command which offers a wait flag like the old behavior. > >>>> However, > >>>> I'm really not comfortable changing API behavior between major > releases > >>>> like that. What is everyone else's thoughts on this? > >>>> > >>> > >>> The old behavior did not wait. The API preserves the old behavior. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
