[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14511077#comment-14511077
]
stack commented on HBASE-13450:
-------------------------------
In the below comment:
// We could write the actual class name from 2.0 onwards and handle BC
... should you add "...or null if we are doing memcmp/BYTES_RAWCOMPARATOR" ?
For ....
567 return null;
... we are returning mid-method. Not good form usually. We will return null if
comparatorClassName.equals(KeyValue.RAW_COMPARATOR.getClass().getName())
... or if
} else if
(comparatorClassName.equals(KeyValue.RAW_COMPARATOR.getLegacyKeyComparatorName()))
{
... at a minimum comment why either of these means we return null else it is a
little cryptic.
Above nits can be addressed on commit.
Is the checkstyle yours? Or the test failure?
> Purge RawBytescomparator from the writers and readers for HBASE-10800
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-13450
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13450
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
> Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-13450.patch, HBASE-13450_2.patch,
> HBASE-13450_3.patch, HBASE-13450_4.patch, HBASE-13450_5.patch
>
>
> Currently KeyValue.RAW_COMPARATOR is written in the Trailer of the HFiles.
> Ideally this need not be persisted to the trailer of the Hfiles because only
> the ROW bloom and the meta index blocks uses this. Currently RAW_COMPARATOR
> is also of type KVComparator.
> HBASE-10800 would introduce CellComparator and would expect only cells to be
> compared. We cannot have RAW_COMPARATOR a type of CellComparator. Hence it
> is better to avoid writing the RAW_COMPARATOR to the FFT and whereever we
> need RAW_COMPARATOR we will directly use it as Bytes.BYTES_RAWCOMPARATOR.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
