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 >
