ctubbsii commented on issue #3559:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/3559#issuecomment-1758043415

   @cshannon, In general, I prefer to keep features as independent as possible. 
I think this is good development practice, and results in more modular code 
design, which is easier to maintain. It also helps with release and feature 
planning when things aren't so co-dependent and tightly coupled. I'm fine with 
targeting elasticity, though, if the benefits of doing so are substantial.
   
   On the two points @keith-turner mentioned:
   * The conditional mutation work isn't done yet, nor is the removal of table 
locks, but that's also a feature that could be done outside of the elasticity 
branch (possibly). It's also possible that conditional mutations can be used 
for this feature, without the other work in the metadata tables using 
conditional mutations yet, since conditional mutations are a per-write feature, 
not a per-table feature. I agree that there's a good chance that this may be 
easier or save some work by starting in the elasticity branch, because of how 
it relates to those things, but right now, I think this is all very 
speculative, as there are so many things in flight. I think think it's worth 
considering those things, but also making an effort to think of how it can be 
done independently, as the exploration of this feature proceeds.
   * The use cases for this may primarily exist in the elasticity branch, but 
that's not an argument against doing this incrementally with some progress in 
the main branch. If the dependency is one way, there's no reason we couldn't 
make some incremental changes in the main branch that is utilized more heavily 
later. Right now, I think it's too early to say what that might look like, 
since this is still at an exploratory stage.
   
   I'm okay with starting the exploration in elasticity branch, but please 
consider putting in some effort to make things modular and work towards 
incremental progress, wherever possible. If it doesn't strictly need to be 
implemented in the elasticity branch, I'd prefer it not be. I'd much rather 
make incremental progress in the main branch than dump everything into 
elasticity, with an all-or-nothing approach... if we can help it (we might not 
be able to help it... it may still make sense to bundle it all in elasticity, 
and if so, I'll accept that... I just don't think it's inevitable yet).


-- 
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]

Reply via email to