hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Darion Yaphet <darion.yap...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ruby shell versions for HBase 2.0
Date Wed, 13 May 2015 17:19:56 GMT
sorry to say I don't good at Ruby .
HBase Shell may should upgrade :)

2015-05-14 1:06 GMT+08:00 Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com>:

> So…
> Silly question…
> Do you really need to worry about backward’s compatibility?
>
> How many people have customized HBaseShell ?
>
> What are the common customizations and if you port HBase shell, how much
> work would filter through to the custom code?
>
>
> > On May 13, 2015, at 11:22 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
>
>


-- 

long is the way and hard  that out of Hell leads up to light

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