git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] including shaded artifacts in the convenience binary


Are the two issues (HBASE-20615 and HBASE-19735) conflicting, redundant, or
orthogonal?

If we have a minimal client tarball that includes the shaded client and
shaded mapreduce modules (and nothing else?) then are we good to go?

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi folks!
>
> Over in HBASE-20331 I'm trying to polish up our story around how
> downstreamers make use of our shaded artifacts. As a part of that I'd
> like have them present as a part of a "normal" hbase installation.
>
> Previously when we've discussed this topic, the assumption was
> downstream folks would package up the shaded client with their
> application themselves. Presumably this would be done via maven or the
> like.
>
> Having worked with them for awhile, I think we're better off including
> them after all.
>
> 1) If most applications are going to use the shaded clients, then by
> not shipping them we're encouraging a situation where you end up with
> a copy per application.
>
> 2) If we ship them we can simplify the default path for some uses,
> namely making hbase mapredcp return the shaded mapreduce client.
> Similarly, we could make a "client classpath" command that gave the
> shaded artifact as an alternative to the current bloat in the hbase
> classpath
>
> 3) If we ship them we can update the docs that walk through using the
> example mapreduce tools to make use of the shaded mapreduce client. If
> we don't make that update we'll essentially have docs that say "here's
> how you run _our_ MR jobs that talk to HBase, but you shouldn't do
> that when running _yours_", which is confusing.
>
> I have a POC patch for just adding them up on HBASE-20615. It keeps
> them out of the normal server classpath entirely.
>
> An alternative is that I could help Josh finish up HBASE-19735 "create
> a minimal client tarball" and we could start pushing folks to install
> it on nodes that they expect to use for connecting to hbase. (I'd want
> to bring it back into 2.1 in that case.)
>
> What do folks think?
>