We've just released the driver I was talking about in these slides:
https://github.com/datastax/java-driver
We plan to merge the work started on cassandra-jdbc with this new driver
and have JDBC as as extra module that can be plugged on top of the core
one. This JDBC layer should be available some
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> Here is what I propose to do (one driver at a time):
>
> 1. Setup new Git-based projects on Apache Extras (cassandra-jdbc and
> cassandra-dbapi2)
> 2. Import the most current code and fix-up the tests as needed
> 3. Submit issues w/ patches for
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Nick Telford wrote:
> It may be prudent to have someone to accept responsibility for each of the
> official drivers in Extras. This way we could have a single ticket (perhaps
> with sub-tickets for each driver) to ensure drivers are brought up to date
> for each rel
It may be prudent to have someone to accept responsibility for each of the
official drivers in Extras. This way we could have a single ticket (perhaps
with sub-tickets for each driver) to ensure drivers are brought up to date
for each release.
This would be less about polluting the C* JIRA with im
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Rick Shaw wrote:
> I worry that if the issue management is moved from the main JIRA for C*
> sponsored drivers there will be synergy and awareness lost between client
> and server. Did the Hector and Pelops folks see it as a good thing to have
> their own?
It's a v
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Rick Shaw wrote:
> I worry that if the issue management is moved from the main JIRA for C*
> sponsored drivers there will be synergy and awareness lost between client
> and server. Did the Hector and Pelops folks see it as a good thing to have
> their own?
I can't
I worry that if the issue management is moved from the main JIRA for C*
sponsored drivers there will be synergy and awareness lost between client
and server. Did the Hector and Pelops folks see it as a good thing to have
their own?
As a small convenience to the Maven inclined among us, perhaps it
On 7 September 2011 10:12, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
>> On 6 September 2011 18:34, Vivek Mishra wrote:
>>> Sounds good moving to github.
>>> 1 quick question, what about JIRAs already raised w.r.t drivers? Not sure
>>> but is it possible to in
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On 6 September 2011 18:34, Vivek Mishra wrote:
>> Sounds good moving to github.
>> 1 quick question, what about JIRAs already raised w.r.t drivers? Not sure
>> but is it possible to integrate these new projects with current JIRA flow?
>>
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Vivek Mishra wrote:
> Sounds good moving to github.
It's Google Code/Apache Extras that we've been discussing actually
(http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting).
> 1 quick question, what about JIRAs already raised w.r.t drivers? Not sure but
> is it po
vans
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:50 PM
> Subject: Proposal: Moving CQL drivers
>
> So following on from the previous discussion[1] about moving the CQL
> drivers out of tree, my interpretation of that discussion is that we
> have consens
le tests I
performed [2].
[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2500
[2] - https://gist.github.com/1185026
Robert Jackson
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Evans"
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 1:20:59 PM
Subject: Proposal
check in some stuff in
both of these.
-Vivek
From: Eric Evans
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:50 PM
Subject: Proposal: Moving CQL drivers
So following on from the previous discussion[1] about moving the CQL
drivers out of tree
So following on from the previous discussion[1] about moving the CQL
drivers out of tree, my interpretation of that discussion is that we
have consensus that this should be done, and that they should go in
Google Code and Apache Extras. Further, it seems a foregone
conclusion that Git be used
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> I'm rather fond of how user-friendly the Python suite is (taking care
>> of server setup/teardown transparently) but realistically, now that we
>> have robust truncate, it's probably fine to require an existing server
>> and just use that.
>
>
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Rick Shaw wrote:
>> For what it is worth, my preference would be to have unit tests that would
>> form a regression testing package in the tree with the client sources.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> I think that makes me
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Rick Shaw wrote:
> For what it is worth, my preference would be to have unit tests that would
> form a regression testing package in the tree with the client sources.
Ditto.
> I think that makes me favor option #3.
I'm rather fond of how user-friendly the Python
For what it is worth, my preference would be to have unit tests that would form
a regression testing package in the tree with the client sources. Ideally the
build package (whether dedicated or mixed in with the server) would have
specific tasks to build, test and install/deploy devoted to the i
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> I posed a similar question about the JDBC driver in CASSANDRA-2936.
>>
>> Should these tests be considered functional tests of Cassandra, and
>> left be left where they are? I know that w
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>>> CASSANDRA-2936 is in progress (patches attached), but is there any
>>> reason not to get started with the Python driver now?
>>
>>
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> I posed a similar question about the JDBC driver in CASSANDRA-2936.
>
> Should these tests be considered functional tests of Cassandra, and
> left be left where they are? I know that was my intention WRT
> test_cql.py (the driver itself has a fe
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> CASSANDRA-2936 is in progress (patches attached), but is there any
>> reason not to get started with the Python driver now?
>
> Heads up that test/system/test_cql.py depends on the Pyth
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> CASSANDRA-2936 is in progress (patches attached), but is there any
> reason not to get started with the Python driver now?
Heads up that test/system/test_cql.py depends on the Python driver.
It should probably be moved to the Python driver's te
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> No one else has sounded off on this, does that mean it's safe to
>> assume there is consensus on this?
>
> Looks like it. The opinions on irc were positive, too.
>
>> If so, is it Apac
I agree that apache extras makes better sense sense it's Branded (tm) and
has git.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Robert Jackson
> wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> >> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (eithe
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Robert Jackson
wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (either would be fine by me).
>>
> Either would be good, but I have a preference for GitHub (easier workflow).
Generally I prefer Github too, but the b
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> No one else has sounded off on this, does that mean it's safe to
> assume there is consensus on this?
Looks like it. The opinions on irc were positive, too.
> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (either would be fine by me).
No strong feel
On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
> No one else has sounded off on this, does that mean it's safe to
> assume there is consensus on this?
>
I definitely think this is the right move.
> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (either would be fine by me).
>
Either woul
ing or patch-oriented development feel like a
>> good fit for CQL drivers.
>
> I emphatically agree.
>
>> If we're going to move the drivers out-of-tree, why not move them all
>> the way to github? We'll still be able to link "official" driver
ng and reuse.
> The git mirror is also a symptom of a deeper problem. Managing the
> drivers from the same Jira system as core is awkward too. Nor does
> three-day release voting or patch-oriented development feel like a
> good fit for CQL drivers.
I emphatically agree.
> If we&
it anyway whether we move drivers or not.)
The git mirror is also a symptom of a deeper problem. Managing the
drivers from the same Jira system as core is awkward too. Nor does
three-day release voting or patch-oriented development feel like a
good fit for CQL drivers.
If we're going to mov
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 17:22, Eric Evans wrote:
>> There are some workarounds that have been proposed for moving the
>> drivers back under Cassandra's source tree while creating independent
>> releases from there. For example, keeping the
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 17:22, Eric Evans wrote:
> There's been discussion happening in #2761
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2761) on and off now
> for more than 3 months, and I think it could benefit from some wider
> exposure.
>
> The issue was created in the wake of the driv
There's been discussion happening in #2761
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2761) on and off now
for more than 3 months, and I think it could benefit from some wider
exposure.
The issue was created in the wake of the driver move from
asf/cassandra/trunk/drivers to asf/cassandra/dri
34 matches
Mail list logo
