How I see it is that in 5.1 there will be TCM for the very first time and I
do not think that config in TCM would make it into 5.1 based on what Sam
talks about (need for some stability etc), that makes total sense to me.
TCM is quite a big feature to deliver on its own and putting even way more
We've been working on a draft CEP for migrating config from yaml to cluster
metadata but have been a bit short of time recently, I'll try to get something
out for discussion as soon as possible.
A little delay isn't such a bad thing IMO, as we're still ironing out the kinks
in the TCM
Yes, all configuration should be transactional (configuration which makes
sense to require to be the same cluster-wide). Guardrails in TCM are just a
subset of this problem. When I started to do CEP-24 I started with
guardrails in TCM but then I realized it leads to more general "all config
in
Hi Shailaja,
thanks for taking a look at this.
That was indeed just an example we can change. It was more about showing
what might be possible in the future, nothing is set in stone yet, as the
last sentence "this is not the part of the initial implementation" explains.
When it comes to these
Summarizing the discussion happened so far
*Data copy using rsync vs SideCar*
Data copy via rsync is an incomplete solution and has to be executed
outside of the Cassandra ecosystem. Data copy via Sidecar is valuable for
Cassandra to have an ecosystem-native approach outside the streaming path
Agreed Aleksey. I wouldn’t be opposed to more nuanced use but the burden
that adds seems impractical. A simple rule is easier.
Jordan
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 05:59 Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote:
> It am okay with its use off hot paths in principle, and I’ve done it
> myself.
>
> But as others have
There’s a difference between the two though. Constraints are part of the table
schema, and (independent of the interaction with Guardrails), have no
dependency on yaml files being perfectly in sync across the cluster. Therefore,
the feature (Constraints) on its own doesn’t depend on
My concern about mentioning other potential constraints to be implemented in
the future on the CEP is it may derail the conversation from the set of initial
ones I want to propose, which are size and value constraints. There is
definitely a lot of other potential constraints that we could
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for the CEP, sounds great. Regarding
If we were about to make this even harder to bypass, we may say that password
can be changed once per day, for example (anytime for a superuser). Since we
have "created" column which is of type timeuuid, we would check this table and
see
It am okay with its use off hot paths in principle, and I’ve done it myself.
But as others have mentioned, it’s not obvious to every contributor what is and
isn’t a hot path. Also, the codebase is a living, shifting thing: a cold path
today can suddenly become hot tomorrow - it’s not uncommon.
I think the value of this conversation is surfacing the problem with
streams and raising awareness. If you use them in some test that sounds
good to me.
Same happens with some loops that trigger iterators that might
inadvertently hydrate lots of unnecessary stuff into memory etc. Keeping
I think it makes sense to use streams to make the life easier for a dev
when constructing some log messages or something like that in clearly not
hot paths. Nothing wrong with that ... Collectors.joining(", ") and that
kind of stuff. I do not think that doing this aggressively and "orthodoxly"
is
I have to admit I didn’t expect when I raised this to be in a minority ok with *some* stream use :)Works for me though, definitely preferable to the status quo.On 7 Jun 2024, at 10:10, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote:Ban in all new non-test code seems like the most pragmatic approach to me as well.On 7
Ban in all new non-test code seems like the most pragmatic approach to me as
well.
> On 7 Jun 2024, at 06:32, Jordan West wrote:
>
> Similarly in the "don't use them in the main project but am ok with tests"
> camp
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:46 AM Štefan Miklošovič
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 1:50 PM Bernardo Botella <
conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote:
> I will update the CEP being specific with the two specific Constraint
> types I will be adding, which are size and value (the ones shown in the
> example).
>
Could you identify constraints for the most
15 matches
Mail list logo
