Github user joshelser commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/90#discussion_r59579078
  
    --- Diff: 
core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/file/FileOperations.java ---
    @@ -55,23 +56,24 @@ public static FileOperations getInstance() {
        */
     
       public abstract FileSKVIterator openReader(String file, Range range, 
Set<ByteSequence> columnFamilies, boolean inclusive, FileSystem fs, 
Configuration conf,
    -      AccumuloConfiguration tableConf) throws IOException;
    +      RateLimiter readLimiter, AccumuloConfiguration tableConf) throws 
IOException;
     
       public abstract FileSKVIterator openReader(String file, Range range, 
Set<ByteSequence> columnFamilies, boolean inclusive, FileSystem fs, 
Configuration conf,
    -      AccumuloConfiguration tableConf, BlockCache dataCache, BlockCache 
indexCache) throws IOException;
    +      RateLimiter readLimiter, AccumuloConfiguration tableConf, BlockCache 
dataCache, BlockCache indexCache) throws IOException;
     
       /**
        * Open a reader that fully support seeking and also enable any 
optimizations related to seeking, like bloom filters.
        *
        */
     
    -  public abstract FileSKVIterator openReader(String file, boolean 
seekToBeginning, FileSystem fs, Configuration conf, AccumuloConfiguration 
acuconf)
    -      throws IOException;
    +  public abstract FileSKVIterator openReader(String file, boolean 
seekToBeginning, FileSystem fs, Configuration conf, RateLimiter readLimiter,
    --- End diff --
    
    > In many parts of our internal code, I would prefer we grab what we need 
from AccumuloConfiguration, combine it with any additional configuration 
appropriate for that specific context, and create a new context-specific 
configuration object to pass around within that context.
    
    Somehow get the RateLimiterFactory directly from the config? That'd be a 
stop-gap.
    
    > I was thinking perhaps a fluent syntax for opening readers/writers would 
make sense.
    > That said, introducing such a change seemed a bit ambitious.
    
    Yeah, I totally understand. Finding some middle ground to avoid lots of 
unrelated changes to your actual feature is ideal.


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

Reply via email to