On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Any other feedback here folks? > > Bundling shaded artifacts AND a client-only access tgz would be doing our users a useful service. Aside: Is it going to be hell to rig the build to autogenerate these new artifacts? S > Mike D, you leaning towards the client tarball or just making sure > I've considered it? > > (FWIW, I think the client tarball would work fine practically speaking > and don't feel strongly about either approach.) > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > > Over in HBASE-20331 I'm trying to polish up our story around how > > downstreamers make use of our shaded artifacts. As a part of that I'd > > like have them present as a part of a "normal" hbase installation. > > > > Previously when we've discussed this topic, the assumption was > > downstream folks would package up the shaded client with their > > application themselves. Presumably this would be done via maven or the > > like. > > > > Having worked with them for awhile, I think we're better off including > > them after all. > > > > 1) If most applications are going to use the shaded clients, then by > > not shipping them we're encouraging a situation where you end up with > > a copy per application. > > > > 2) If we ship them we can simplify the default path for some uses, > > namely making hbase mapredcp return the shaded mapreduce client. > > Similarly, we could make a "client classpath" command that gave the > > shaded artifact as an alternative to the current bloat in the hbase > > classpath > > > > 3) If we ship them we can update the docs that walk through using the > > example mapreduce tools to make use of the shaded mapreduce client. If > > we don't make that update we'll essentially have docs that say "here's > > how you run _our_ MR jobs that talk to HBase, but you shouldn't do > > that when running _yours_", which is confusing. > > > > I have a POC patch for just adding them up on HBASE-20615. It keeps > > them out of the normal server classpath entirely. > > > > An alternative is that I could help Josh finish up HBASE-19735 "create > > a minimal client tarball" and we could start pushing folks to install > > it on nodes that they expect to use for connecting to hbase. (I'd want > > to bring it back into 2.1 in that case.) > > > > What do folks think? >
