I agree that HDFS-2246 is a short term solution and we should not keep it there forever. However, we still need a transition period to replace an old mechanism by a new one. No?
Tsz-Wo ________________________________ From: Eli Collins <e...@cloudera.com> To: "hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <hdfs-dev@hadoop.apache.org>; Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:24 AM Subject: Re: VOTE: HDFS-347 merge On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I still do not see a valid reason to remove HDFS-2246 immediately. Some > users may have insecure clusters and they don't want to change their > configuration. Because it doesn't make sense to support multiple mechanisms for the same thing. 2246 was always intended to be a *short term solution* util 347 was completed, eg see Sanjay's first comment on 2246: "A shortcut has been proposed where the client access the hdfs file blocks directly... This is non-invasive and is a good short term solution till HDFS-347 is completed." Thanks, Eli
