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" <st...@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 <bus...@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 > > >
