Hi Pierre,
>From what I understand, the way Apache projects work is that a group in
the community may want a certain capability (for example running with
hbase and solr). There may be another group in the community who want to
run with other capabilities (Cassandra) that the first group may not be
interested in. Each group in the community would test, raise and fix
issues and make sure that their capability still worked.
The committers and PMC decide what is supported,based on things like their
confidence on what has been tested. As far as I am aware, none of the
committers or PMCs have tested Cassandra or Scylladb in production, and
the code change you did and I committed was for an embedded Cassandra
build. Embedded Cassandra seems to be a development style of build -
embedded hbase is a different build profile from external hbase - which is
the hbase profile used in production.
So there are no issues I am aware of, and there is one voice in the
community who wants Cassandra support. I would also like Cassandra support
in Atlas, but I have not put any resources in to doing rigorous testing of
it. I suggest adding the embedded Cassandra for development now , this may
encourage other members of the community to use Cassandra and raise, test
and fix issues around Cassandra; so that production use could then be
easily supported. I suggest this is a point in time decision for v1.0, and
does not stop people from using Cassandra in production with v1.0 or from
Atlas supporting it in the future. I think the community and Apache Atlas
is stronger from being inclusive of diverse usages of Atlas,
I am interested if you or others have views on my interpretation,
all the best, David.
From: Pierre Padovani <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 27/04/2018 20:18
Subject: Re: Cassandra support for Atlas v1.0
I don't have an issue with #3, but we will be using it in production,
specifically with the Scylladb implementation.
Out of curiosity, what exactly are the issues?
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Apoorv Naik <[email protected]>
wrote:
> #3 sounds like a better option for now. +1
>
> On 4/27/18, 12:42 AM, "Nigel Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018/04/26 16:14:06, David Radley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> > 3) Document it in the same way as the embedded solr and hbase
build.
> That
>
> +1 for this option #3
>
> If in future someone has a need for production support I'm sure they
> will get engaged and help in testing etc :-)
>
>
>
>
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
