Cassandra-jdbc can do cql3 as well as cql2. The rub (and why I would never recommend it) is that it does cql3 over thrift. So you lose out on all the native protocol features.
> On May 11, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Brian Hess <brianmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One thing that does jump out at me, though, is about CQL2. As much as we > have advised against using cassandra-jdbc, I have encountered a few that > actually have used that as an integration point. I believe that > cassandra-jdbc is CQL2-based, which is the main reason we have been > advising folks against it. > > Can we just confirm that there isn't in fact widespread use of CQL2-based > cassandra-jdbc? That just jumps out at me. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> So I think EOLing 2.0.x when 2.2 comes >>> out is reasonable, especially considering that 2.2 is realistically a >> month >>> or two away even if we can get a beta out this week. >> >> Given how long 2.0.x has been alive now, and the stability of 2.1.x at the >> moment, I’d say it’s fair enough to EOL 2.0 as soon as 2.2 gets out. Can’t >> argue here. >> >>> If push comes to shove I'm okay being ambiguous here, but can we just >> say >>> "when 3.0 is released we EOL 2.1?" >> >> Under our current projections, that’ll be exactly “a few months after 2.2 >> is released”, so I’m again fine with it. >> >>> P.S. The area I'm most concerned about introducing destabilizing changes >> in >>> 2.2 is commitlog >> >> So long as you don’t you compressed CL, you should be solid. You are >> probably solid even if you do use compressed CL. >> >> Here are my only concerns: >> >> 1. New authz are not opt-in. If a user implements their own custom >> authenticator or authorized, they’d have to upgrade them sooner. The test >> coverage for new authnz, however, is better than the coverage we used to >> have before. >> >> 2. CQL2 is gone from 2.2. Might force those who use it migrate faster. In >> practice, however, I highly doubt that anybody using CQL2 is also someone >> who’d already switch to 2.1.x or 2.2.x. >> >> >> -- >> AY >> >> On May 11, 2015 at 21:12:26, Jonathan Ellis (jbel...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> 3.0, however, will require a stabilisation period, just by the nature of >>> it. It might seem like 2.2 and 3.0 are closer to each other than 2.1 and >>> 2.2 are, if you go purely by the feature list, but in fact the opposite >> is >>> true. >> >> You are probably right. But let me push back on some of the extra work >> you're proposing just a little: >> >> 1) 2.0.x branch goes EOL when 3.0 is out, as planned >> >> 3.0 was, however unrealistically, planned for April. And it's moving the >> goalposts to say the plan was always to keep 2.0.x for three major >> releases; the plan was to EOL with "the next major release after 2.1" >> whether that was called 3.0 or not. So I think EOLing 2.0.x when 2.2 comes >> out is reasonable, especially considering that 2.2 is realistically a month >> or two away even if we can get a beta out this week. >> >> 2) 3.0.x LTS branch stays, as planned, and helps us stabilise the new >>> storage engine >> >> Yes. >> >> >>> 3) in a few months after 2.2 gets released, we EOL 2.1. Users upgrade to >>> 2.2, get the same stability as with 2.1.7, plus a few new features >> >> If push comes to shove I'm okay being ambiguous here, but can we just say >> "when 3.0 is released we EOL 2.1?" >> >> P.S. The area I'm most concerned about introducing destabilizing changes in >> 2.2 is commitlog; I will follow up to make sure we have a solid QA plan >> there. >> >> -- >> Jonathan Ellis >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >> @spyced >>
