sharmaar12 commented on PR #7464:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/7464#issuecomment-3605211419
> The final version of this ReadOnlyController became too long and difficult
to follow. I wonder if we should provide separate implementations for each of
the observers/coprocessors being overridden here, and register those
accordingly. WDYT?
@wchevreuil
If we separate then I feel it will have two types of behavior changes than
our current implementation.
1. For making cluster read-only, earlier we have to add only one
co-processor class in hbase-site.xml. For example,
<property>
<name>hbase.coprocessor.region.classes</name>
<value>org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.ReadOnlyController</value>
</property>
But if we split in 4 files then user may need to add all of them. Skipping
one of it will make cluster inconsistent. So I feel having one is less error
prone than 4.
2. For each separate co-processor we need to have configuration observers
and changes to the read-only property via these observers needs to happen
atomically, meaning all of the observers should either change together or if
any one fails then we need to revert remaining. If either one of the class
failed to change the property then there may be inconsistencies in the cluster.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
