[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11497?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14059478#comment-14059478
]
Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-11497:
----------------------------------------
bq. Should we use HBaseInterfaceAudience constants instead ?
Let me put up a patch for branch-1 and master that does that.
> Expose RpcScheduling implementations as LimitedPrivate interfaces
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11497
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11497
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: io, regionserver, Usability
> Affects Versions: 0.99.0, 0.98.4
> Reporter: Jesse Yates
> Assignee: Jesse Yates
> Fix For: 0.99.0, 0.98.4, 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: hbase-11497-0.98-v0.patch
>
>
> In PHOENIX-938 we are attempting to resolve cross-RS deadlocks in indexing by
> adding custom RPC handlers (so regular puts/reads don't interfere with index
> updates). However, we've run into a couple of snags where the interfaces
> change, making it a bit more difficult to support interoperability between
> minor versions as the underlying RPC handling changed (for the better, but
> still different :).
> This would just mark those interfaces Public, Evolving, so we still have some
> flexibility, but don't break existing usage.
> Note, this kind of thing will come up for any client who is doing custom RPC
> handling - beyond the recently added flexibility - but wants to stay in line
> with the current HBase implementation (rather than building their own RPC
> handling mechanisms).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
