On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote: > I like the idea of client tarball. I think it will make things easier for > users. However, I agree with Keith that we are going to need to split the > accumulo command into accumulo-client & accumulo-server. I am interested > in helping out with this as I have done a lot of work on the scripts in 2.0.
2.0 would be a good time for disruptive script changes. Could call client script accumulo and server script accumulo-server. Just thinking the client script is used more often so shorter would be nice. > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> $dayjob presented me with a request to break up the current tarball into >> two: one suitable for "users" and another for the Accumulo services. The >> ultimate goal is to make upgrade scenarios a bit easier by having client >> and server centric packaging. >> >> The "client" tarball would be something suitable for most users providing >> the ability to do things like: >> >> * Launch a java app against Accumulo >> * Launch a MapReduce job against Accumulo >> * Launch the Accumulo shell >> >> Essentially, the client tarball is just a pared down version of our >> "current" tarball and the server-tarball is likely equivalent to our >> "current" tarball (given that we have little code which would be considered >> client-only). >> >> Obviously, there are many ways to go about this. If there is buy-in from >> other folks, adding some new assembly descriptors and making it a part of >> the Maven build (perhaps, optionally generated) would be the easiest in >> terms of maintenance. However, I don't want to push for that if it's just >> going to be ignored by folks. I'll be creating something to support this >> one way or another. >> >> Any thoughts/opinions? Would this have any value to other folks? >> >> - Josh >>
