> On March 19, 2014, 4:54 p.m., Josh Elser wrote: > > Oh, I see you're targeting 1.6.1 for this - that explains not wanting to > > add things to the public API. Just putting them in a different location to > > avoid the problem doesn't seem right either. Shouldn't this go into 1.7 > > then? > > Josh Elser wrote: > Or, copying what you had on the ticket: 1.6.0 if it is so decided. > > Bill Havanki wrote: > I really want to add unit tests that take advantage of InstanceFactory > into the 1.6 line. Since we're (hopefully?) so close to a 1.6.0 release, I > didn't want to complicate it by putting InstanceFactory, for example, into > its logical home in the public API. So, putting it in an impl subpackage is a > cruddy compromise. > > (This is also why I didn't make a MockInstanceFactory. A good one needs > package access to MockInstance (to get a default file system object), but > MockInstance is in the public API.) > > I agree for 1.7 everything can go in the proper places. For 1.6, I'm at a > loss for a "right" solution. Should I consult Mr. Vines, the 1.6 RM? > > Josh Elser wrote: > I wouldn't have a problem with putting this into 1.6.0 (maybe with the > experimental annotation to advertise that it's not some new GA "feature"). If > someone has issue with it, I would guess they'll bring it up here -- > otherwise, I wouldn't personally be too concerned. > > Sean Busbey wrote: > Our API is confusing enough in terms of expected usage. I'd like to keep > this internal use until the discussion over API refactoring and properly > planning for client lifecycle happens. I don't know if that will be in the > 1.7 line or later. > > Bill Havanki wrote: > I'm fine with keeping this out of the public API for now. It's quite > likely that we'll find more factories we'd like to add and this same issue > will crop up. Perhaps a new package would be in order, such as > o.a.a.core.client.internal?
how would that differ from o.a.a.core.client.impl? - Sean ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19409/#review37732 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 19, 2014, 4:44 p.m., Bill Havanki wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19409/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 19, 2014, 4:44 p.m.) > > > Review request for accumulo. > > > Bugs: ACCUMULO-2497 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2497 > > > Repository: accumulo > > > Description > ------- > > To help in testing, this commit adds an InstanceFactory interface with some > implementations. > > To avoid changing the public API, some classes are in o.a.a.core.client.impl. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/InstanceFactory.java > PRE-CREATION > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/ZooKeeperInstanceFactory.java > PRE-CREATION > > core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/ZooKeeperInstanceFactoryTest.java > PRE-CREATION > > server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/client/HdfsZooInstanceFactory.java > PRE-CREATION > > server/base/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/client/HdfsZooInstanceFactoryTest.java > PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19409/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Unit tests pass. > > > Thanks, > > Bill Havanki > >
