Pros: * It's easier to test and maintain * it's easier to script with * its interactive mode "feels" mode focused on the task of interacting with a cluster to me (maybe this is just acting like a psql or mysql shell)
Cons * adding custom commands requires knowing java -- Sean On May 13, 2015 12:31 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is the Accumulo shell superior? > > Is it scriptable? > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
