[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2036?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12790390#action_12790390
]
stack commented on HBASE-2036:
------------------------------
Yes presumption seems to be that the configuration won't change. Hashing all
in a configuration will be expensive. There is usually a lot of config in
there. For a new htable that is not passed a configuration can we not make a
new instance internal to the htable constrictor as we currently do?
> Use Configuration instead of HBaseConfiguration
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-2036
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2036
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enis Soztutar
> Attachments: hconf.patch
>
>
> HBaseConfiguration extends Configuration but does not add any functionality
> to it. The only function is hashCode() which really should be refactored into
> Hadoop Configuration.
> I think in all the places(especially in the client side) HBase methods and
> classes should accept Configuration rather than HBaseConfiguration. The
> creation of the configuration with the right files (hbase-site and
> hbase-default) should not be encapsulated in a private method, but in a
> public static one.
> The issues has arisen in our nutch+hbase patch for which we include both
> nutch configuration and hbase configurations. Moreover people may want to
> include separate project-specific configuration files to their configurations
> without the need to be dependent on the HBaseConfiguration.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
