Fair enough. That's why I mentioned ByteString more than anything else. If the new RPC will always convert client api/application values into ByteStrings and my application is always storing protobuf keys and protobuf objects, it'd be nice if I could just hand you a ByteString as the value for each of these rather than converting them back to byte[] and then having you convert them again.
thanks, Jacques On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jacques <[email protected]> wrote: > > Or at a minimum, it would be nice that if > > we wanted to get access to the lower level pb objects, that modifications > > to HTable and/or supporting classes wouldn't be super complicated. > > It's less a matter of complexity, and more a matter of not wanting to > expose the implementation details as part of the API. It really > restricts us when we do this -- for example, KeyValue is used in the > underlying storage all the way up through the client API, which means > it's verify difficult for us to do something like switch to an > off-heap storage for cell data, for example. > > That said, the request for an easy way to build convenience APIs with > low numbers of copies makes sense > > -Todd > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
