Thanks for the suggestion, will try to add additional checks on the server side.
Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> 于2021年7月8日周四 上午3:37写道： > I agree that validation should happen on the server. We should not assume > anything about the client in terms of correctness. > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 21:30 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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. > > >>>> > > >> > > >
