Oops, meant to address this specifically to Jonathan, but since I've confused 'reply' with 'forward'. my apologies for any extra noise on this topic.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > - world > > Hi Jonathan, > > This topic may have been discussed elsewhere, or my memory is worse off > than I thought, but what is our long term vision for thrift support? > Admittedly, I need to learn much more about the binary CQL protocol, and I > understand Ed's concerns, as well (more acutely now) about existing > installations, but we probably wouldn't have dreamt up a new client > interface/protocol if we went planning, at some point, on retiring the old > one. And, also, I missed the Avro debate from the past, so I'm not sure how > much that affects current and future thinking. > > After raising the issue here on the dev list, it certainly seems like 2.0 > is premature for a full-on switch over, and Ed raised some interesting > metrics to consider when we could declare the CQL protocol as 'accepted'. > I'm curious as to how you are seeing it roll out. > > Thanks for your time, > > -Jason > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As attractive as it would be to clean house, I think we owe it to our >> users to keep Thrift around for the forseeable future rather than >> orphan all Thrift-using applications (which is virtually everyone) on >> 1.2. >> >> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi Jonathan, >> > >> > I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder if >> > there is value in removing support for thrift with 2.0? We're currently >> in >> > 'do as little as possible' mode with thrift, so should we aggressively >> cast >> > it off and push the binary CQL protocol? Seems like a jump to '2.0', >> along >> > with the other initiatives, would be a reasonable time/milestone to do >> so. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -Jason >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> The more I think about it, the more I think we should call 1.2-next, >> >> 2.0. I'd like to spend some time paying off our technical debt: >> >> >> >> - replace supercolumns with composites (CASSANDRA-3237) >> >> - rewrite counters (CASSANDRA-4775) >> >> - improve storage engine support for wide rows >> >> - better stage management to improve latency (disruptor? lightweight >> >> threads? custom executor + queue?) >> >> - improved repair (CASSANDRA-3362, 2699) >> >> >> >> Of course, we're planning some new features as well: >> >> - triggers (CASSANDRA-1311) >> >> - improved query fault tolerance (CASSANDRA-4705) >> >> - row size limits (CASSANDRA-3929) >> >> - cql3 integration for hadoop (CASSANDRA-4421) >> >> - improved caching (CASSANDRA-1956, 2864) >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan Ellis >> >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >> >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >> >> @spyced >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Ellis >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >> @spyced >> > >
