ctubbsii commented on a change in pull request #2175:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/2175#discussion_r657490394



##########
File path: 
server/manager/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/manager/tableOps/delete/PreDeleteTable.java
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+ * software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+ * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+ * KIND, either express or implied.  See the License for the
+ * specific language governing permissions and limitations
+ * under the License.
+ */
+package org.apache.accumulo.manager.tableOps.delete;
+
+import org.apache.accumulo.core.data.NamespaceId;
+import org.apache.accumulo.core.data.TableId;
+import org.apache.accumulo.fate.Repo;
+import org.apache.accumulo.manager.Manager;
+import org.apache.accumulo.manager.tableOps.compact.cancel.CancelCompactions;
+
+public class PreDeleteTable extends CancelCompactions {

Review comment:
       Because classes are serialized to ZK, making this a subclass could have 
unintended consequences. I think the implementation that reuses a method is 
safer than subclassing, and gives us more options moving forward to change the 
implementation with something that blocks future compactions as well as 
canceling existing ones, without being tightly coupled to the other 
implementation.
   
   The code we'd be inheriting from the CancelCompactions is trivial anyway, 
and I was thinking the lock name shouldn't be "COMPACT_CANCEL" anyway, since 
that's not the tableOp being performed. The read lock should be getting a read 
lock for "DELETE" anyway, so it shouldn't use the superclass impl, as this 
would be less confusing in the log messages (which is all the TableOperations 
enum is used for).




-- 
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]


Reply via email to