[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10602?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14105437#comment-14105437
]
Carter commented on HBASE-10602:
--------------------------------
Wouldn't you want the async call to be the new signature, so it doesn't break
backwards compatibility? I guess it doesn't matter with "put", but for
instance checkAndPut and other non-void methods:
{code}
public boolean checkAndPut(byte[], byte[], byte[], byte[], Put);
public Future<Boolean> asyncCheckAndPut(byte[], byte[], byte[], byte[], Put);
{code}
This also means that you can grow/evolve the Table interface rather than
figuring out the future/async version in the first iteration.
Last point, following on Nick's assertion about object creation (where does the
~100k objects # come from btw?), you may not want to default the user to an
async call creates more garbage collection in the client, rather let them
decide if they need it.
> Cleanup HTable public interface
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-10602
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10602
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Client, Usability
> Reporter: Nick Dimiduk
> Assignee: Enis Soztutar
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 0.99.0
>
> Attachments: hbase-10602_v1.patch
>
>
> HBASE-6580 replaced the preferred means of HTableInterface acquisition to the
> HConnection#getTable factory methods. HBASE-9117 removes the HConnection
> cache, placing the burden of responsible connection cleanup on whomever
> acquires it.
> The remaining HTable constructors use a Connection instance and manage their
> own HConnection on the callers behalf. This is convenient but also a
> surprising source of poor performance for anyone accustomed to the previous
> connection caching behavior. I propose deprecating those remaining
> constructors for 0.98/0.96 and removing them for 1.0.
> While I'm at it, I suggest we pursue some API hygiene in general and convert
> HTable into an interface. I'm sure there are method overloads for accepting
> String/byte[]/TableName where just TableName is sufficient. Can that be done
> for 1.0 as well?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
