[GitHub] [ozone] elek commented on a change in pull request #2089: HDDS-5011. Introduce Java based ReplicationConfig implementation

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

elek commented on a change in pull request #2089:
URL: https://github.com/apache/ozone/pull/2089#discussion_r607841890



##########
File path: hadoop-hdds/common/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdds/client/StandaloneReplicationConfig.java
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.hadoop.hdds.client;
+
+import org.apache.hadoop.hdds.protocol.proto.HddsProtos.ReplicationFactor;
+import org.apache.hadoop.hdds.protocol.proto.HddsProtos.ReplicationType;
+
+import java.util.Objects;
+
+/**
+ * Replication configuration for STANDALONE replication.
+ */
+public class StandaloneReplicationConfig implements ReplicationConfig {
+
+  private final ReplicationFactor replicationFactor;
+
+  public StandaloneReplicationConfig(ReplicationFactor replicationFactor) {

Review comment:
       Very good point. I agree that STANDALONE/THREE support should be removed if it's not available.
   
   However, I am not sure about the backward compatibility: let's say I already have a STANDALONE/THREE key persisted in OM rocksdb. If we don't allow THREE for STANDALONE it means that we will change the persisted THREE to ONE during de-serialization.
   
   I am not sure if it's good or not, but can be confusing.
   
   What do you think about this problem? 
   
   I don't have a strong opinion. If we remove STANDALONE/THREE support, it seems to be a bigger change (we need to implement proper validation, fix unit tests where STANDALONE/THREE is used, etc. But I am closer to your suggestion, to do this cleanup together with the other changes.




-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@ozone.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@ozone.apache.org