hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ruby shell versions for HBase 2.0
Date Wed, 13 May 2015 17:30:51 GMT
Why is the Accumulo shell superior?

Is it scriptable?


On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I would love to rip out the JRuby shell entirely and make something closer
> to the Accumulo shell, but I expect that will
>
> 1) be way more work
>
> 2) be even less compatible for those that rely on customizations.
>
> I figured given time we could get a preview "user shell" (rather than
> "power shell" via irb) together in 2.0 and aim for default in 3.0.
>
> --
> Sean
> On May 13, 2015 12:19 PM, "Stack" <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Nice writeup Sean.
> >
> > Yeah, +1 to new jruby in hbase 2.0. We'd need to be careful license is
> > still amenable and hopefully jruby 9k will be slimmer than jruby 1.7+.
> >
> > But if we are going to do a significant shell refactor for hbase 2.0,
> > should we consider doing something more radical; e.g. a new shell? If
> > interest, could start up a new thread so don't distract from this one.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks!
> > >
> > > If you weren't aware, our current shell relies on Ruby, specifically
> the
> > > REPL program IRB from JRuby. When we launched 1.0 we were on JRuby 1.6
> > with
> > > defaults, which means we're stuck on Ruby 1.8.
> > >
> > > For those that don't already know, Ruby 1.8 is super old and has been
> > > walking off into the sunset for a few years now. Most (but not all!)
> > formal
> > > support systems for running Ruby have EOLed 1.8 and there are numerous
> > > known issues with it.
> > >
> > > Right now there's an open ticket to get us on JRuby 1.7 so that our
> shell
> > > can work on PPC systems[1]. That version of JRuby defaults to Ruby 1.9
> > but
> > > can be run in Ruby 1.8 mode. There are some implementation details
> > > outstanding, but I'm hoping that ticket can work out such that it can
> > land
> > > in branch-1.
> > >
> > > For HBase 2.0, I'd like us to plan for a little farther out in the
> future
> > > than just updating to Ruby 1.9 (though that would be a fine incremental
> > > step with some non-trivial work attached). The "current" version of
> Ruby
> > is
> > > 2.2. Much like the move from 1.8 -> 1.9 it is not backwards compatible.
> > >
> > > JRuby's next major maintenance release line is "version 9000"[2] and it
> > > will start out *only* supporting Ruby 2.2. Right now JRuby 9000 is in
> its
> > > second "preview" release. They still have a few feature complete items
> to
> > > address before they hit their first GA release.
> > >
> > > I'd like us to move to Ruby 2.2 via JRuby 9000 for HBase 2.0.  This
> will
> > > cause operator pain to folks with advanced scripts based on Ruby 1.8,
> but
> > > it should allow us to update versions to avoid e.g. perf, correctness,
> > and
> > > security issues much more easily over the lifetime of 2.0.
> > >
> > > What do folks think? Would JRuby 9000 need to hit a GA release prior to
> > > HBase 2.0 getting released for us to adopt it? Or would it only need
> > enough
> > > of Ruby 2.2 to run our current shell?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13338
> > > [2]: http://www.slideshare.net/CharlesNutter/over-9000-jruby-in-2015
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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