hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Ruby shell versions for HBase 2.0
Date Wed, 13 May 2015 17:28:15 GMT
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
> >
>

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