HBase shipping a tgz containing Phoenix sounds backwards to me. It seems like Hadoop project shipping a tgz with Hive included as a convenience. Such convenience packages would be great, but I don't think it's HBase project's responsibility to do so any more than it would be Hadoop project's responsibility in my above example. Upstreamers packaging downstreamers sounds backwards to me.
On the other hand, I think it makes a lot of sense for *someone* to ship a "batteries included"Phoenix tgz with Hadoop and HBase. If anyone, that someone should be Phoenix. I don't think it that unreasonable for Phoenix to do this. Or have a 3rd party packaging, as I mentioned before. I don't know what BigTop packages, but such a bundle seems reasonable for that project to produce, as one of many "batteries included" Apache products. On Wednesday, March 18, 2015, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: > Again... 'bit late chiming in. > > I'd be +1 on this. We'd essentially just ship HBase with an extra shell.I > don't think Phoenix can do this, because it does not usually ship the bits > needed to run HBase, but just the bits to add to HBase to have > Phoenix.Phoenix should not be in the business to maintain an HBase > distribution. > One could argue that we should not be in the business to maintain a > Phoenix distribution. But we wouldn't really. We'd just add the Phoenix jar > to our binary distro, pre-hook the coprocessors, and add the SQLLine, and > psql.On the HBase side I'd suggest we'd add a script to dev-support to > package up the HBase+Phoenix distro, and maybe we add a new target to the > pom to pull a Phoenix version. > > What exactly we'd ship should be discussed (all the Phoenix tools, or just > some?) Giving HBase a nice SQL shell seems cool to me, and that's were some > more of the more hairy issues might be found. > > -- Lars > > From: Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org <javascript:;>> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>" <dev@hbase.apache.org > <javascript:;>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:44 PM > Subject: [DISCUSSION] "Convenience binaries" bundling Phoenix > > Consider if the HBase project starts releasing new "convenience binaries", > in addition to the existing ones, in which we bundle a recent/vetted/stable > version of Phoenix, with the site file changes for loading their > coprocessors already patched in (to hbase-default.xml) For now this would > be done for 0.98 only, since that's the only release line supported by an > actively developed Phoenix version. We could also do this for 0.94 releases > with Phoenix 3 if the 0.94 RM wants, but I doubt there would be any demand > for this, Phoenix 3 is inactive because that community has all moved to 4, > I'd imagine that carries over here. > > Advantages: > > - HBase would ship with a SQL access option. There's the Phoenix JDBC > driver of course, and we'd also bundle the psql and sqlline exec wrappers > from the Phoenix binary distribution. We'd have both the jruby shell and a > SQL shell, this is a powerful combination. > > - HBase ships with a library that assists users in making efficient queries > if their data is typed, but this doesn't include the server side > optimizations that the Phoenix coprocessors provide, and in that case no > hand rolling is necessary. > > - HBase would ship with secondary indexes. These would not cover all > possible use cases and requirements, let's stipulate that now and hope this > doesn't kick off another circular discussion on that front. Unquestionably > this is a compelling Phoenix feature so some use cases obviously can > benefit, and if users find the combined distribution useful enough we don't > have to discuss secondary indexes in HBase core again. > > - We will have done the necessary integration work for the combined result > to be easy to use. Apache software cat herders will appreciate this. > > - It's totally optional, simply ignore the new binary packages if you don't > care. This is not a Grand Unification proposal. > > Concerns: > > - More work for the RM. Unquestionably. > > - Concerns about the quality of the combined convenience artifact: Is there > an implied warranty? Could we disclaim? Should we disclaim? If not, how > does HBase do QA on this. Related to the above concern about RM bandwidth. > Maybe Phoenix could help. > > - Increased coupling between the projects. Frankly, I think this already > there, we just don't see it until we trip over issues that could have been > avoided with more communication between projects. Pushing on Phoenix for > bits for a monthly HBase release cadence will surface issues faster and > improve communication between the projects. This benefits Phoenix with more > QA bandwidth. This benefits HBase because we see Phoenix bringing in a > significant number of users. > > - We may want to revisit again normalizing type support in HBase's client > library and Phoenix, eventually. > > I could add more items to the advantage or concern lists but mainly want to > float the idea for feedback at this time. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) > > >
