[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9576?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13772449#comment-13772449
]
stack commented on HBASE-9576:
------------------------------
How soon could you make a patch?
.protos evolved. Had 5 or 6 different folks working on it independently often
at different times.
On 1., lets remove now
2. The model is from what was there previous. Merge would simpify (IIRC)
3. ok. We are trying to do a pseudo proto subclassing w this class -- should
have done as you suggest a while ago
4. looks like large effort that needs its own issue and wont be done for this
release
5. Sounds good
6. Erred on the side of keeping things optional rather than required.
Understood two camps on this...
Other criticism came in recently from another currently trying to write a
client against hbase, HBASE-9576 ([~tsuna])
Thanks Dan
> Fixups in hbase protobuf
> ------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9576
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9576
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Protobufs
> Reporter: stack
>
> Benoit was looking at out pbs. Had following remarks:
> {code}
> ...there is something that doesn't make sense to me...a MutateRequest can
> have a Condition...the Condition has row/family/qualifier...so for a single
> KV CAS, one needs to specify the...row/family/qualifier twice...once in the
> MutationProto and once in the Condition...not a huge deal...just weird
> ...also in Comparator.proto, both BinaryComparator and BinaryPrefixComparator
> (and BitComparator too actually) would have been better off without
> ByteArrayComparable, which seems a useless pb, but no big deal either
> {code}
> Will keep this issue open as place to accumulate pb fixups.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
