bq. Existing shell commands in the exact form they have now? Admin job quite often relies on using hbase shell commands. I think the above is desirable.
Cheers On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hiya Folks! > > Right now, the HBase shell relies on an old version of JRuby (1.6, last > released ~2 years ago) and a very old version of Ruby (1.8). > > I'd like to start working towards refactoring the shell. Updating some of > our underlying libraries will make it easier to fix up some of our low > hanging improvements (start up latency, utf8 support). > > This got me wondering about what the bounds of changing are (esp for > master). > > 1) How common is making use of the fact that our shell is actually and IRB > session? Do we want to keep encouraging that for users? Could we change the > focus of the IRB version to be developers of HBase? Could we just make a > HBase client gem and provide instructions for using it in IRB? > > 2) However extensive our keeping IRB is, do we need to keep the same Ruby > compatibility? Spanning Ruby 1.8 and 1.9 is a pain, but possible. (I know > very few people still using 1.8 though) When Ruby 2 support lands > supporting either of those won't be possible, because at that point JRuby > will only support Ruby 2.1[1]. > > 3) Do we have any guidance on compatibility across versions for the shell? > I couldn't find anything obvious. > > 4) Lacking #2, what do we want to ensure keeps working the same? Existing > shell commands in the exact form they have now? Table variables (as opposed > to setting a "current table" context for the shell session)? > > [1]: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jruby-users/qmLpZ7qDwZo/J_iYViplcq4J > > -- > Sean >
