So is the suggestion to just add the other signature to hbase's version? We recently ran into another problem due to this ZeroCopy class -- shouldn't it really be pushed into protobuf, or pulled out as a separate jar of some sort. We ran into into class path/class loader problems with it because if subclasses a com.google.protobuf class (out of a package).
Jon. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:35 AM, tsuna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Nicolas Liochon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Should we not rename ZeroCopyLiteralByteString to something like > > HBasePrivateZeroCopyLiteralByteString to be sure that we won't have name > > conflicts in the future? > > I don't mind keeping the same name as long as we agree on the API. > I don't expect this class to change much if at all anyway. It's just > really unfortunate that this method was changed, what's more with a > signature that renders it unusable. > > -- > Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected] // @jmhsieh
