[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9677?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15118752#comment-15118752
]
Vinayakumar B commented on HDFS-9677:
-------------------------------------
I feel current change is fine. {{legacyGenerationStamp}} looks better and
inline with similar legacy things.
bq. Suppose a new user plays with generation stamp for the very first time, she
needs to know implementation details before she is able to tell which one is
legacy or deprecated. Even with current V1/V2 naming, we should not blame a new
user who wonders whether a generationStampV3 version exists.
First of all, Genstamp is not user-controlled or user-exposed. ( I mean,
exactly user, not the developer :) ).
Second, Since its legacy, its kept there just to support old blocks. Not to
generate new blocks with that. New blocks will always be generated with
newGenstamp itself.
So IMO, its fine. No need to be so specific on implementation details.
> Rename generationStampV1/generationStampV2 to
> legacyGenerationStamp/generationStamp
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-9677
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9677
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: namenode
> Reporter: Jing Zhao
> Assignee: Mingliang Liu
> Attachments: HDFS-9677.000.patch, HDFS-9677.001.patch
>
>
> [comment|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9542?focusedCommentId=15110531&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15110531]
> from [~drankye] in HDFS-9542:
> {quote}
> Just wonder if it's a good idea to rename: generationStampV1 =>
> legacyGenerationStamp; generationStampV2 => generationStamp, similar for
> other variables, as we have legacy block and block.
> {quote}
> This jira plans to do this rename.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
