[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12972?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14370058#comment-14370058
]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-12972:
---------------------------------------
What is the plan for branch-1 for this? Over at Phoenix, I am creating the
branches for supporting 4.4+ to be released with HBase-0.98 and HBase-1.0
support. However, if we have the same patch in branch-1, we might need yet
another branch in Phoenix.
I was thinking about committing this to master, but omit the changes to
coprocessor interfaces in branch-1 and 0.98. I think for both 0.98 and
branch-1, we do not want to cause more pain to coprocessor writes (and Phoenix)
if possible. Is it possible that we only get the changes which introduce the
new interface, but do not change the existing observer signatures ?
> Region, a supportable public/evolving subset of HRegion
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-12972
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12972
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Andrew Purtell
> Assignee: Andrew Purtell
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.1.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-12972-0.98.patch, HBASE-12972.patch,
> HBASE-12972.patch
>
>
> On HBASE-12566, [~lhofhansl] proposed:
> {quote}
> Maybe we can have a {{Region}} interface that is to {{HRegion}} is what
> {{Store}} is to {{HStore}}. Store marked with {{@InterfaceAudience.Private}}
> but used in some coprocessor hooks.
> {quote}
> By example, now coprocessors have to reach into HRegion in order to
> participate in row and region locking protocols, this is one area where the
> functionality is legitimate for coprocessors but not for users, so an
> in-between interface make sense.
> In addition we should promote {{Store}}'s interface audience to
> LimitedPrivate(COPROC).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
