[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13916?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14588407#comment-14588407
]
stack commented on HBASE-13916:
-------------------------------
bq. We will have to add these counts to the approved counts.
Ok.
Should we add an hbase.nio package and put these new classes there (and all to
do w/ BB?)
I think the class comment should describe when to use this rather than
ByteBufferArray from util.
Is the fact that the nature of MBB changes based on whether there is one BB or
many BBs going to confuse? Why not just throw unsupported whatever the BB
count in methods like array, arrayOffset, etc.
If the above behavior is 'fundamental' to how this class works, it needs
calling out in the class comment.
Why a getVLong in here? That belongs outside this class?
Is the unsafe work going on in BBUtils dupe of Bytes unsafeing? Should the
BBUtils go to Bytes for Unsafe ops?
Otherwise, looks good. Can come in as a utility as long as it is well
described.
Nice test.
> Create MultiByteBuffer
> ----------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-13916
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13916
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: regionserver, Scanners
> Reporter: Anoop Sam John
> Assignee: Anoop Sam John
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-13916.patch, HBASE-13916_V2.patch
>
>
> This is an aggregation of N ByteBuffers. The block when served directly by
> block cache buckets memory, we have the block data split across multiple byte
> buffers. This aggregate type (like ByteBuffer) will serve the HFileBlock data.
> This jira wil just provide the new data structure
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
