That makes sense :) On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >
-- It's always darkest just before you are eaten by a grue.
