2009/7/7 Doğacan Güney <[email protected]> > Hi list, > > In current trunk, TableReducer is defined like this: > > .... > public abstract class TableReducer<KEYIN, VALUEIN> > extends Reducer<KEYIN, VALUEIN, ImmutableBytesWritable, Put> > .... > > As VALUEOUT is a Put, I guess one can not delete columns (like we could > do with BatchUpdate) using collect(). I can still create Delete-s in > #reduce > and > do a table.delete but that seems unintuitive to me. Am I missing something > here > or is this the intended behavior?
Thats intended behavior for that class. Put and Delete do not share common ancestor other than Writable so its a little awkward. What would you suggest Doğacan? Maybe we should add Marker interfaces to Put and Delete and then change TableReducer to take the Marker? Now is a good time to bring this up before it gets set in stone by the 0.20.0 release. Thanks for looking at this. St.Ack
