In looking at implementations of IMetaStoreClient, e.g.,
HiveMetaStoreClient, it seems to make sense to have this interface extend
Configurable. Has this ever been given any thought? Shouldn't all classes
whose ctors always expect HiveConf be Configurable
(org.apache.hadoop.conf.Configurable)?
Austin Lee created HIVE-12679:
-
Summary: Allow users to be able to specify an implementation of
IMetaStoreClient via HiveConf
Key: HIVE-12679
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-12679
Project
FYI - I have created the following JIRA for this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-12679
Thanks,
Austin
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Alan Gates wrote:
> I think opening a JIRA is a good next step.
>
> Alan.
>
> Austin Lee
> December 15, 2015 at 11:19
> T
ay the UDF interface). Yes it's external to
> the metastore package as you point out.
>
> Alan.
>
> Austin Lee
> December 15, 2015 at 10:46
> Yes, a more efficient implementation is what I am trying to achieve. I
> also want to retain the ability to talk to a rem
se case. You can run Hive now without
> the thrift server, so I'm guessing that's not what you're really trying to
> do. Are you just interested in building a more efficient implementation or
> do you have another use case in mind?
>
> Alan.
>
> Austin Lee
> Decem
Hi,
I would like to propose a change that would make it possible for users to
choose an implementation of IMetaStoreClient via HiveConf, i.e.
hive-site.xml. Currently, in Hive the choice is hard coded to be
SessionHiveMetaStoreClient in org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.metadata.Hive.
There is no other d
