I think that's partly the idea of it. CQL could end up being a way forward and it currently builds on thrift. Then if it becomes the API/client of record to build on, then it could move to something else underneath that's more efficient and CQL itself wouldn't have to change at all.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Jeffrey Kesselman wrote: > While I agree the Thrift API sucks, Id love to see that sovled on a > binary level, and CQl on top of that. > > JK > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Marcos Ortiz <mlor...@uci.cu> wrote: >> On 06/08/2011 01:23 PM, SriSatish Ambati wrote: >> >> Gotta love, Eric! >> http://www.slideshare.net/jericevans/nosql-yes-but-yescql-no >> >> -- >> SriSatish Ambati >> Director of Engineering, DataStax >> @srisatish >> >> >> >> >> Good resource. >> Thanks for share it with us SriSatish >> >> Regards >> >> -- >> Marcos Luís Ortíz Valmaseda >> Software Engineer (UCI) >> http://marcosluis2186.posterous.com >> http://twitter.com/marcosluis2186 >> >> > > > > -- > It's always darkest just before you are eaten by a grue.
