On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Eric Evans <eev...@acunu.com> wrote: >> I'm rather fond of how user-friendly the Python suite is (taking care >> of server setup/teardown transparently) but realistically, now that we >> have robust truncate, it's probably fine to require an existing server >> and just use that. > > I like it too, but it pretty much requires that you have a complete > Cassandra tree around (you need config, scripts, and both run and > build deps), and obviously it needs to have been built. > > This is how the JDBC driver was setup when it was moved out of tree > and at least a couple of people (yourself included I believe), found > it to be less-than-friendly. If it looks like I'm trying to steer the > discussion away from this option, that's why.
Well, IMO there's a qualitative difference between "you need to have the source tree around and edit a file to point the JDBC build to it" and "you need to have the server listening on 9160, a packaged release is fine." -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support http://www.datastax.com
