hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBase shell compatibility needs
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:17:58 GMT
bq. Existing shell commands in the exact form they have now?

Admin job quite often relies on using hbase shell commands. I think the
above is desirable.


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Hiya Folks!
> Right now, the HBase shell relies on an old version of JRuby (1.6, last
> released ~2 years ago) and a very old version of Ruby (1.8).
> I'd like to start working towards refactoring the shell. Updating some of
> our underlying libraries will make it easier to fix up some of our low
> hanging improvements (start up latency, utf8 support).
> This got me wondering about what the bounds of changing are (esp for
> master).
> 1) How common is making use of the fact that our shell is actually and IRB
> session? Do we want to keep encouraging that for users? Could we change the
> focus of the IRB version to be developers of HBase? Could we just make a
> HBase client gem and provide instructions for using it in IRB?
> 2) However extensive our keeping IRB is, do we need to keep the same Ruby
> compatibility? Spanning Ruby 1.8 and 1.9 is a pain, but possible. (I know
> very few people still using 1.8 though) When Ruby 2 support lands
> supporting either of those won't be possible, because at that point JRuby
> will only support Ruby 2.1[1].
> 3) Do we have any guidance on compatibility across versions for the shell?
> I couldn't find anything obvious.
> 4) Lacking #2, what do we want to ensure keeps working the same? Existing
> shell commands in the exact form they have now? Table variables (as opposed
> to setting a "current table" context for the shell session)?
> [1]: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jruby-users/qmLpZ7qDwZo/J_iYViplcq4J
> --
> Sean

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message