[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7801?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13582854#comment-13582854
]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-7801:
--------------------------------------
Makes sense. I think it is not a horrible idea to expose the PB's as client
API's. If we want to have non-java clients (especially third party ones), then
the java api is not our only client-facing API. Our RPC, and the PB's are
client facing as well. Also, we might get rid of the client objects -> PB ->
wire -> PB -> server objects flow, and go with client PB -> wire -> server PB
-> wal/memstore.
> Allow a deferred sync option per Mutation.
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-7801
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7801
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Assignee: Lars Hofhansl
> Fix For: 0.96.0, 0.94.6
>
> Attachments: 7801-0.94-v1.txt, 7801-0.94-v2.txt, 7801-0.96-v1.txt
>
>
> Won't have time for parent. But a deferred sync option on a per operation
> basis comes up quite frequently.
> In 0.96 this can be handled cleanly via protobufs and 0.94 we can have a
> special mutation attribute.
> For batch operation we'd take the safest sync option of any of the mutations.
> I.e. if there is at least one that wants to be flushed we'd sync the batch,
> if there's none of those but at least one that wants deferred flush we defer
> flush the batch, etc.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
