kgeisz commented on PR #7464:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/7464#issuecomment-3610004754
> 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 I agree with @sharmaar12:
> For making cluster read-only, earlier we have to add only one co-processor
class in hbase-site.xml. For example,
hbase.coprocessor.region.classes
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.ReadOnlyController 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.
My understanding (like @sharmaar12 said) is if we split `ReadOnlyController`
into multiple files, then each separate coprocessor would need to be added to
the config. We already need to add the `ReadOnlyController` coprocessor for
the master, regionserver, and region. For example, an `hbase-site.xml` file
needs to have the following:
```
<property>
<name>hbase.coprocessor.master.classes</name>
<value>org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.ReadOnlyController</value>
</property>
<property>
<name>hbase.coprocessor.regionserver.classes</name>
<value>org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.ReadOnlyController</value>
</property>
<property>
<name>hbase.coprocessor.region.classes</name>
<value>org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.ReadOnlyController</value>
</property>
```
If `ReadOnlyController` is split into multiple coprocessor files, then
wouldn't we need each of these new coprocessors for the master, regionserver,
and region?
--
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]
