However it should be pretty easy to apply though given our stability and
relatively small size. :-) Seems like it would be useful for users and
developers both...
Patrick
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Mahadev Konar maha...@yahoo-inc.comwrote:
I was able to get hold of one of the hadoop
I was able to get hold of one of the hadoop developers. So the gist of the
story is,
They have interface tagging saying
Something like
@Audience.limitedPrivate(target=pig)
Wherin this interface is defined for pig and is only to be used by pig
oflks.
Interfaces can be defined as public,
There isnt any documentation on the interface tagging other than the running
comments. I will try to get hold of one of the hadoop folks to get me a dump of
the info and will create a jira!
Thanks
mahadev
On 8/11/10 9:56 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
wrt defining interface
Patrick,
I saw your patch and was afraid you wouldn't like to wait for me and change
it. :-) I'll continue to work on my issues and also put them into jira for
review so that my team can start to work on the new API.
After your patch is applied, I'll adapt my patches, which should not change
On 08/11/2010 11:36 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
I saw your patch and was afraid you wouldn't like to wait for me and change
it. :-) I'll continue to work on my issues and also put them into jira for
review so that my team can start to work on the new API.
After your patch is applied, I'll adapt my
Thomas, btw, if you'd like (anyone really) to do a patch extracting
deleterecursive from zk into some helper class I think that would be a
good idea to get sooner rather than later.
Patrick
On 08/11/2010 11:36 PM, Thomas Koch wrote:
Patrick,
I saw your patch and was afraid you wouldn't like
HI Thomas,
I read through the list of issues you posted, most of them seem reasonable to
fix. The one's you have mentioned below might take quite a bit of time to fix
and again a lot of testing! (just a warning :)). It would be great if you'd
want to clean this up for 3.4. Please go ahead and
Also, I am assuming you have backwards compatability in mind when you suggest
these changes right?
The interfaces of zookeeper client should not be changing as part of this,
though the recursive delete hasn't been introduced yet (its only available in
3.4, so we can move it out into a helper
Hallo Mahadev,
thank you for your nice answer. Yes, we'll of cause preserve compatibility.
Otherwise there is no chance to get accepted.
I assume the following things must keep their interfaces:
ZooKeeper (It'll call the new interface in the background), ASyncCallback,
Watcher
We may want to
wrt defining interface stability we should adopt something like hadoop
is now doing:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5073
Mahadev, do you know if this is documented somewhere? final
documentation, rather than the running commentary thats on this jira? We
could adopt something
Hi Thomas, thanks for the reports, esp the JIRAs. One you missed (and
aptly numbered) that's a pet peeve of mine is this one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-666
I think part of what you are seeing is that the C api matured more
quickly, and directly influenced the development
Off note: I have a Scala wrapper on the Java client (sync only) that has
these functions:
- treeAsList(path: String)
- processTree(path: String,f: (String - Unit))
This implements recursive delete as a processTree(path,delete_), but
also a recursive copy and move if need be.
Just my two
Thomas,
I see some patches already, which is great, however there's a
big/complicated refactoring that's pending here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-823
and to some extent here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-733
and refactorings in this code prior to
13 matches
Mail list logo
