[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16984?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15682800#comment-15682800
]
Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-16984:
-----------------------------------
{quote}
would be cool if could set it per scan but if too hard ingore my moaning...
{quote}
I think this could be done in a separated issue. There are bunch of things need
to be changes for our scan semantics and implementations, as I said in
HBASE-15484...
{quote}
Is Scan only thing that is 'raw' when I get a RawAsyncTable? If so, is that
enough reason to have two AsyncTables? Should we rather just have a single
AsycnTable that returns a raw scan and a simple scan?
{quote}
For now the only different is scan, {{scan}} is for RawAsyncTable and
{{getScanner}} is for AsyncTable. But I think it is more clear for user to have
different interface names? And I think the current ScanResultConsumer interface
is too complicated for normal user(especially the onHeartbeat method). If we
want to introduce a callback scan method for normal user, I think we'd better
make a new one.
Thanks.
> Implement getScanner
> --------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-16984
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16984
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Client
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-16984-v1.patch, HBASE-16984.patch
>
>
> It will just return the old ResultScanner and work like the
> AsyncPrefetchClientScanner. I think we still need this as we can not do time
> consuming work in the ScanObserver introduced in HBASE-16838.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
