Append is already useful for our current project. It makes it possible for us not to implement extra tricky logic to compact a large number of small files regularly.
Thanks Lei On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Dhruba Borthakur <dhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think "append" would be useful. But not precisely sure which applications > would use it. I would vote to keep the code though and not remove it. > > -dhruba > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > @Eli, Removing a feature would simplify the design and code. I think >> this is a generally true statement but not specific to Append. The >> question is whether Append is useless and it should be removed? I think it >> is clear from this email thread that the answer is no. >> >> @Nicholas, no one is saying append is "useless and should be removed." >> The discussion is perhaps a little more subtle than you've understood >> it to be. >> >> If there are a lot of good use cases I'm all for it, I just don't see >> downstream projects using it any time soon (which is not to say they >> don't want it, just that they can't depend on something not in 1.x), >> and I haven't seen much demand. I wanted to hear from others if they >> had. When I brought it up with a room of hdfs developers from 3 >> different companies no one felt strongly. And so far only a handful of >> people have chimed in, I actually thought more would. >> >> Thanks, >> Eli >> > > > > -- > Subscribe to my posts at http://www.facebook.com/dhruba
