For what it's worth, I'd very much like to completely remove SASI from the
codebase for 6.0. The only remaining functionality gaps at the moment are
LIKE (prefix/suffix) queries and its limited tokenization
capabilities, both of which already have SAI Phase 2 Jiras.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 7:20 PM
> If anything, the codebase could use a little more package/class/method markup
> in some places
I am impressed with how diplomatic and generous you're being here Derek. :D
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023, at 5:46 PM, Miklosovic, Stefan wrote:
> That is a good idea. I would like to have Javadocs valid when
With the upcoming release of Apache Cassandra 5.0, I’d like to create a
landing page for the release and what that could look like.
The landing page would be intended to educate users about what is coming up
in this important release, highlighting why upgrading will be valuable to
them, as well
SASI just uses “=“ for the tokenized equality matching, which is the exact
thing this discussion is about changing/not liking.
> On Aug 2, 2023, at 7:18 PM, J. D. Jordan wrote:
>
> I do not think LIKE actually applies here. LIKE is used for prefix,
> contains, or suffix searches in SASI
I do not think LIKE actually applies here. LIKE is used for prefix, contains,
or suffix searches in SASI depending on the index type.
This is about exact matching of tokens.
> On Aug 2, 2023, at 5:53 PM, Jon Haddad wrote:
>
> Certain bits of functionality also already exist on the SASI side
> That said I would happily support an effort to bring repair scheduling to the
> sidecar immediately. This has nothing blocking it, and would potentially
> enable the sidecar to provide an official repair scheduling solution that is
> compatible with current or even previous versions of the
Certain bits of functionality also already exist on the SASI side of things,
but I'm not sure how much overlap there is. Currently, there's a LIKE keyword
that handles token matching, although it seems to have some differences from
the feature set in SAI.
That said, there seems to be enough
That is a good idea. I would like to have Javadocs valid when going through
them in IDE. To enforce it, we would have to fix it first. If we find a way how
to validate Javadocs without actually rendering them, that would be cool.
There is a lot of legacy and rewriting of some custom-crafted
With or without outputting JavaDoc to HTML, there are some errors which we
should maybe fix. We want to keep the documentation, but there can be
syntax errors which may prevent IDE generating a proper preview. So, the
question is - should we validate the JavaDoc comments as a precommit task?
Can
Oh, whoops, I guess I'm the only one that thinks Javadoc is just the tool
and/or it's output (not the markup itself) :P If anything, the codebase
could use a little more package/class/method markup in some places, so I'm
definitely only in favor of getting rid of the ant task. I should amend my
Hello list,
I want to double check this one (1) on ML.
It is relatively an innocent low-hanger however the caveat is that it might
potentially break the upgrade to 5.0. The deprecation happened in (2) (in 4.0).
I think it is just eligible for deletion now. This property was commented out
and
I second what Josh said and confirm we were talking only about the task, no
one is going to remove javadoc from the source code and I totally encourage
people to continue documenting the code
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 15:30, Josh McKenzie wrote:
> most people are not looking at Javadoc when working
> most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the codebase.
I definitely use it extensively **inside the IDE**. But never as a compiled set
of external docs.
Which is to say, I'm +1 on removing the target and I'd ask everyone to keep
javadoccing your classes and methods where things
+1. If a need comes up for Javadoc we can fix it at that point, but I
suspect most people are not looking at Javadoc when working on the codebase.
Cheers,
Derek
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:11 AM Brandon Williams wrote:
> I don't think even if it works anyone is going to use the output, so
> I'm
I don't think even if it works anyone is going to use the output, so
I'm good with removal.
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:50 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> We were looking into a user report around our ant javadoc task recently.
> That made us realize it is
Hi everyone,
We were looking into a user report around our ant javadoc task recently.
That made us realize it is not run in CI; it finishes successfully even if
there are hundreds of errors, some potentially breaking doc pages.
There was a ticket discussion where a few community members mentioned
16 matches
Mail list logo
