[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17491?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15832289#comment-15832289
]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-17491:
-------------------------------
bq. Just seems odd making an interface and not using it
It's also the case for AsyncTableBuilder, and I think maybe it's reserved for
other builder implementations, or mind clarify the design for async builder
[~Apache9]? Thanks. (And I'm ok to only use one single TableBuilder class w/o
any interface introduced for Table, will upload a v5 patch following this way,
and just let me know which looks better, thanks.)
bq. If you passed the tablename separate from the builder (as it is now) would
that help?
I think it's natural to ask for the table name when constructing the builder,
to make it clear instance of which table will be build.
bq. v4 still has...
Yes, by means to trigger hbase-server UT and make sure no regression, will
remove in the v5 patch.
> Remove all setters from HTable interface and introduce a TableBuilder to
> build Table instance
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-17491
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17491
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Yu Li
> Assignee: Yu Li
> Attachments: HBASE-17491.patch, HBASE-17491.v2.patch,
> HBASE-17491.v3.patch, HBASE-17491.v4.patch
>
>
> As titled, we will remove all setters in HTable for master branch and
> deprecate them for branch-1 to make HTable thread-safe. And a new
> {{TableBuilder}} interface will be introduced to build Table instance
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
