On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like it would be best if it were in a separate jar for people?
A separate jar (distributed separately) sounds like the best way to setup an opt-in arrangement without forcing people to patch-out the affected bits. > On Nov 16, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Bill wrote: > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> >> We'll turn this off, and would possibly patch it out of the code. That's not >> to say it wouldn't be useful to others. >> >> Bill >> >> >> On 15/11/11 23:23, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >>> I started a "users survey" thread over on the users list (replies are >>> still trickling in), but as useful as that is, I'd like to get >>> feedback that is more quantitative and with a broader base. This will >>> let us prioritize our development efforts to better address what >>> people are actually using it for, with less guesswork. For instance: >>> we put a lot of effort into compression for 1.0.0; if it turned out >>> that only 1% of 1.0.x users actually enable compression, then it means >>> that we should spend less effort fine-tuning that moving forward, and >>> use the energy elsewhere. >>> >>> (Of course it could also mean that we did a terrible job getting the >>> word out about new features and explaining how to use them, but either >>> way, it would be good to know!) >>> >>> I propose adding a basic cluster reporting feature to cassandra.yaml, >>> enabled by default. It would send anonymous information about your >>> cluster to an apache.org VM. Information like, number (but not names) >>> of keyspaces and columnfamilies, ks-level options like compression, cf >>> options like compaction strategy, data types (again, not names) of >>> columns, average row size (or better: the histogram data), and average >>> sstables per read. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >> >> > > -- Eric Evans Acunu | http://www.acunu.com | @acunu
