Hi Joe, I believe the biggest reason that a NOT operator is not included in the syntax is for simplicity.
It's humorous how often even experienced users can find themselves tracking down "why can't I see my data" at the application level when the problem was just incorrect markings or authorizations. Second, the functionality is already present by the lack of providing the label which you want to negate. Categorizing data into static labels tends to be more manageable over using many roles. While enumerating the inverse of a negation is possible, it is valid that the marking may be much larger on disk than a representation using a negation. Another important tidbit (not sure if you realized yet), but it will be tricky to make sure that the flatten method in ColumnVisibility still works correctly. This makes sure that CVs are "normalized" to equivalent forms. Adding parens can likely make it easier, but that's something else to keep in mind. That being said, you should feel free to open an issue when you have a patch ready and we can continue the conversation about including a new operator on the mailing lists. Thanks! On Mar 5, 2014 3:49 PM, "joeferner" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm looking at implementing the "NOT" operator in visibility strings. I > actually have it working just need to write some unit tests for it. I was > wondering if there was any reason why it don't exist now? It looks to be > explicitly called out in the docs "dog|!cat". > > The new HBase also looks to support the "NOT" operator: > https://hbase.apache.org/book/hbase.visibility.labels.html > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/NOT-operator-in-visibility-string-tp7949.html > Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
