ctubbsii commented on pull request #1787: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/1787#issuecomment-729319342
> Given unlimited volunteer effort I agree that such an implementation would be nice. I was operating on the assumption that there was already an interested volunteer willing to pursue this a little bit. Is that not the case? I don't think the solution I explained above is that complex, and I'm happy to help as needed. I think this would be a good opportunity to encourage a contributor, if they are interested! > Can you think of a technical justification for a veto for the simpler incremental change where the hash is configurable, presuming it is paired with a suitable warning on compatibility? A possible technical justification for a veto would be that the Authenticator component is pluggable already, and there is no reason to implement half measures when a use case for specific Authenticator needs can already be satisfied with what's there now: copy/rename/replace hash/deploy... no change to Accumulo needed if all one wants to do is use SHA-512. My hope in discussing the design of the preferred solution was to encourage a possible contribution from an interested party. If such a party does not exist, I would prefer to do it myself rather than go with an intermediate solution. However, my highest preference was to encourage a contributor effort. Vetoing was the last thing on my mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
