[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12704190#action_12704190
]
Erik Holstad commented on HBASE-880:
------------------------------------
@Stack
+1 on dropping TimeRange.
Yes, if you do a delete with a timestamp that doesn't exist in HBase it will
have no effect at all.
I don't really like to go look for things to delete, cause that means that you
have to do a get to do a delete and to me that kind of defeats the purpose of
having the new storage format.
In the new implementation of memcache if you do a delete with a specified
timestamp and that put is in there, I was thinking that you would remove the
put and the delete since the delete has already been used and doesn't do any
good any more. So what I think is better if want to support deletion of the
latest version without specifying the timestamp is to lift this logic into the
deleteCheck of the server. Maybe that is what you meant?
> Improve the current client API by creating new container classes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-880
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-880
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: client
> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Fix For: 0.20.0
>
> Attachments: 880.patch, 880proposal4plus-v2.patch,
> 880proposal4plus.patch, 880proposal5-v2.patch, 880proposal5-v2.png,
> 880proposal5.patch, 880proposal5.png, hbase-880-patch.jpg,
> hbase-880-proposal4.patch, HBASE-880-proposal6-v2.txt,
> HBASE-880-proposal6-v3.txt, HBASE-880-proposal6-v4.txt, hbase-880-v1.patch,
> hbase-880-v2.patch, HBASE-880_Design_Doc.pdf, HBASE-880_Design_Doc_v2.pdf,
> HBASE-880_Design_Doc_v3.pdf, hbase_client_classes.png,
> NewCilentAPIProposoal4.gif, proposal2.jpg, proposed.jpg
>
> Original Estimate: 240h
> Remaining Estimate: 240h
>
> The current API does not scale very well. For each new feature, we have to
> add many methods to take care of all the overloads. Also, the need to batch
> row operations (gets, inserts, deletes) implies that we have to manage some
> "entities" like we are able to do with BatchUpdate but not with the other
> operations. The RowLock should be an attribute of such an entity.
> The scope of this jira is only to replace current API with another
> feature-compatible one, other methods will be added in other issues.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
