hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com>
Subject RE: Decision/Discussion about HBASE-2170: Lightweight client/Refactoring of source tree
Date Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:55:40 GMT
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but find that the core of this problem seems to be a
lack of simple documentation about the required jars to run a client.  The practice of adding
jars until no longer getting CNFE would be solved with documentation stating which are client-dependent
jars.

What exactly is the goal?  Is it to prevent this CNFE trial-and-error practice?  Is it to
make it so clients only need a single jar?  Or is it to make a single, lightweight jar that
only works for the client?

Is there a lot of added value by having a single, client-only jar vs a single jar that works
for client and server?

I'm all for making it easier for users, so if users say this would be helpful then we should
do something.  Code separation is also not a bad thing.  I just never liked the hadoop separation
so I don't want to make things actually more complex in the process.

JG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Francke [mailto:lars.francke@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:15 AM
> To: hbase-dev@hadoop.apache.org
> Subject: Decision/Discussion about HBASE-2170: Lightweight
> client/Refactoring of source tree
> 
> I'd like to get a vote/discussion started about
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2170
> 
> I've seen multiple requests on Twitter, IRC or the mailing lists for a
> simple way to start client development. This simply does not exist at
> the moment and I suspect the problem will grow worse the more people
> use HBase.
> 
> All the problems and possible solutions seem to be laid out in the
> ticket. Problem: I just want to get all the required jars to write a
> program that accesses HBase, preferably those jars are distributed via
> a publicly accessible repository. At the moment this is just not
> easily doable and it is very hard to get started as Kay Kay has laid
> out beautifully (just add jars until there are no more
> ClassNotFoundExceptions). It should be easy to still provide a jar
> that contains everything as it is now if needed.
> 
> As this would take another considerable effort in moving around a
> whole bunch of files and directories I'd like to get a consensus
> before one of us (seems as if Paul Smith, Kay Kay and me would be
> candidates) does unnecessary work on this.
> 
> I'd love your input on this (here or in the ticket) and if you have
> any questions about the Maven side of this shoot.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lars
Mime
View raw message