[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15071?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15086058#comment-15086058
]
Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-15071:
----------------------------------------
bq. the problem here is. what bypass mean for things that are not returning
values who is creating a table or adding a column? does that make sense or at
least play well with all the assumptions we have around the code base?
Increasingly difficult to make sense of, yes. See above where I remarked to
[~chenheng] we could remove the bypass semantic in 2.0. It's a big deal but one
can make the argument that a semantic increasingly difficult (or impossible) to
manage as the code evolves is one that should be put on the chopping block.
> Cleanup bypass semantic in MasterCoprocessorHost
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-15071
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15071
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Coprocessors
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: stack
> Priority: Blocker
>
> Lets decide on this one before we release 2.0.0.
> A bunch of methods in MasterCoprocessorHost on the 'pre' step allow returning
> true which indicates the method invocation is not to proceed.
> Not all 'pre' steps do this. Just some.
> Seems a little arbitrary.
> How we skip out if we are not proceed with the invocation is also a little
> arbitrary.
> When a deleteColumn call is supposed to skip out, it returns a -1, a
> non-procId. If we are to skip a balance call, we log that CP said skip and
> then return false to indicate the balancer did not run (why?). Elsewhere we
> just exit silently. In createNamespace we used to exit silently but
> HBASE-14888 just changed it so we throw a BypassCoprocessorException
> instead...
> Lets make them all work the same way.
> (This issue comes of chat w/ Matteo)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
