[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11386?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14052764#comment-14052764
]
Qianxi Zhang commented on HBASE-11386:
--------------------------------------
[~stack]
We'll break anyone currently using this feature? Their configuration string
will break when this code goes in?
Yes, since the input format is changed, people need input according the new
format again.
Does it have to be this way? Could we support old format and new?
I want to find a way to maintain backward compatibility, but now I have no
idea. Maybe we can offer a new interface, but I think it is not a good way. If
anyone have ideas, please offer them to me.
> Replication#table,CF config will be wrong if the table name includes namespace
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11386
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11386
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Replication
> Reporter: Qianxi Zhang
> Assignee: Qianxi Zhang
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HBASE_11386_trunk_v1.patch, HBASE_11386_trunk_v2.patch
>
>
> Now we can config the table and CF in Replication, but I think the parse will
> be wrong if the table name includes namespace
> ReplicationPeer#parseTableCFsFromConfig(line 125)
> {code}
> Map<String, List<String>> tableCFsMap = null;
> // parse out (table, cf-list) pairs from tableCFsConfig
> // format: "table1:cf1,cf2;table2:cfA,cfB"
> String[] tables = tableCFsConfig.split(";");
> for (String tab : tables) {
> // 1 ignore empty table config
> tab = tab.trim();
> if (tab.length() == 0) {
> continue;
> }
> // 2 split to "table" and "cf1,cf2"
> // for each table: "table:cf1,cf2" or "table"
> String[] pair = tab.split(":");
> String tabName = pair[0].trim();
> if (pair.length > 2 || tabName.length() == 0) {
> LOG.error("ignore invalid tableCFs setting: " + tab);
> continue;
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
