Details

    • Type: New Feature New Feature
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: fs
    • Labels:
      None
    • Target Version/s:

      Description

      It's hard to get users to migrate to FileContext because they (rightly!) want their software to work against Hadoop 1.x which only has FileSystem. Backporting FileContext to branch-1 would allow people to migrate to FileContext and still work against both Hadoop 1.x and 2.x (or whatever we call it). It probably isn't that much work since FileContext is mostly net new code with lots of tests. It's a pain to support the same code in two places, but we already have to do that with FileSystem, and that's the cost of introducing a new API instead of improving FileSystem in place.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Matt Foley made changes -
          Target Version/s 1.2.0 [ 12321659 ] 1.3.0 [ 12324327 ]
          Hide
          Matt Foley added a comment -

          Changed Target Version to 1.3.0 upon release of 1.2.0. Please change to 1.2.1 if you intend to submit a fix for branch-1.2.

          Show
          Matt Foley added a comment - Changed Target Version to 1.3.0 upon release of 1.2.0. Please change to 1.2.1 if you intend to submit a fix for branch-1.2.
          Hide
          Matt Foley added a comment -

          Moved to 1.2.0 upon release of 1.1.0.

          Show
          Matt Foley added a comment - Moved to 1.2.0 upon release of 1.1.0.
          Matt Foley made changes -
          Target Version/s 1.1.0 [ 12316501 ] 1.2.0 [ 12321659 ]
          Eli Collins made changes -
          Field Original Value New Value
          Link This issue is related to HADOOP-8040 [ HADOOP-8040 ]
          Hide
          Eli Collins added a comment -

          This would get the client side but not the server side, which would need to be backported as well. I'm not planning to do this jira at the moment btw which is why I left it unassigned.

          Show
          Eli Collins added a comment - This would get the client side but not the server side, which would need to be backported as well. I'm not planning to do this jira at the moment btw which is why I left it unassigned.
          Hide
          Kihwal Lee added a comment -

          Does this mean the sym link support will be backported as well?

          Show
          Kihwal Lee added a comment - Does this mean the sym link support will be backported as well?
          Eli Collins created issue -

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              Eli Collins
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              7 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:

                Development