[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5923?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13859998#comment-13859998
]
Feng Honghua commented on HBASE-5923:
-------------------------------------
background: I created a jira
[HBASE-10262|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10262] for the same
goal, so I move here for continuous discussion, :-)
bq. If we allow control of the compareOp we need to allow for different
comparators as well (for LESS, etc) Or we can punt on that and just force
binary comparator as we do not for EQUAL --[~lhofhansl]
==> I agree above because (for trunk):
1. only CompareOp exposed to HTable/HTableInterface interface, no proto. type
introduced, so it's clean
2. no wire protocol change, so it's lightweight
3.non-equal comparison operations such as LESS/GREATER use implied
BinaryComparator which is reasonable/acceptable
also attach patch for
[HBASE-10262|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10262] here for
reference, a similar patch has been applied in our internal branch and worked
fine for quite a long time. :-)
> Cleanup checkAndXXX logic
> -------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-5923
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5923
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Client, regionserver
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Labels: noob
> Attachments: 5923-0.94.txt, 5923-trunk.txt
>
>
> 1. the checkAnd{Put|Delete} method that takes a CompareOP is not exposed via
> HTable[Interface].
> 2. there is unnecessary duplicate code in the check{Put|Delete} code in
> HRegionServer.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
