Hmmm. So if we move to a different tech, the modifications / customizations people have done are going to be useless. If we upgrade to a new version of JRuby, some scripts may not have issues, others may have some , and a third group would have major rewrites.
The interesting / downside to JRuby is that within the entire eco system… no other use of JRuby. If you were going to switch… maybe Python? (Jython) > On May 13, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 2015 12:06 PM, "Michael Segel" <michael_se...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> So… >> Silly question… >> Do you really need to worry about backward’s compatibility? >> >> How many people have customized HBaseShell ? >> >> What are the common customizations and if you port HBase shell, how much > work would filter through to the custom code? >> >> > > These are excellent questions to which I have poor answers. > The mechanics of the interactive repl via IRB will probably not be that > different. However, the ref guide calls out the ability to customize things > via hooking in your own ruby script so there's little bound on what we've > set for expectations. Given ruby 1.8's age, I'm not even sure there are 1.8 > to 2.2 guides; likely folks would need to follow 1.8 to 1.9 and 1.9 to 2.2 > guides (or we could work to provide some combined guidance). > > Customizations are just as likely to be "call this sequence of commands" > (little to no work for update) as a daemon that does health and recovery > checks (lots of work, approaching "rewrite"). > > Personally, I avoid customizations at least in part because it's ruby 1.8. > I've also discouraged those who ask me. Instead I rely on the > non-interactive flag and bash. But given the ref guide positioning, it's > likely we'll break a nontrivial number of folks.
