I don’t have a strong opinion but servers can never fully trust clients. The client can be altered. Maybe not by you/us. Typically the servers are fully under your control and this is where you must apply service protection, hence validity checks on the server side - regardless of what the client does.
> On Jul 7, 2021, at 2:23 AM, Baiqiang Zhao <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Reid and Andrew! > > Agree to reject negative TTL directly on the write path, because negative > TTL is invalid. > The point of divergence is whether this check is on the client side or on > the server side. > > I simply think it is easier to check and throw the exception directly on > the client side, and there is no additional pressure on the server. > If the check is on the server side, it will increase the pressure on the > RegionServer (although the pressure is small). > > I prefer to check and throw exceptions on the client side. > > Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> 于2021年7月4日周日 上午3:16写道： > >> We can also reject the request on the server side with an extra >> validation. A negative TTL is not valid in any case. >> >>>> On Jul 3, 2021, at 5:35 AM, Reid Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The default FOREVER is LONG.MAX, quite long enough. >>> >>> I checked the JIRA. The simplest fix is to ban setting -1 from the client >>> side by raising an exception, meanwhile we could improve the method docs. >>> >>> I'm not a fan of changing the semantics of FOREVER, -1. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 2:36 PM Baiqiang Zhao <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> For CF TTL, “-1” means it will not expire. But for Cell TTL, “-1” will >>>> expire immediately. In HBASE-26056, I tried to unify the meaning of cell >>>> TTL and CF TTL on the value of -1, both mean never expire. >>>> >>>> This is a behavior change. Maybe will break some users usage. However, >>>> setting it to -1 will immediately expires, and it doesn't make any >> sense. I >>>> haven't thought of what kind of scene would be used in this way. So I >> want >>>> to hear your opinions about this change. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>
