> Where we differ that I feel the coverage for existing thrift use cases isn't > 100%. That may be right or wrong, but it is my impression.
Here's my problem: either CQL covers all existing thrift use cases or it does not (in which case the non supported use case should be pointed out). It's a technical question, not one that is matter of "impression" or "feeling". I'm fine with you saying that, in your personal opinion, some use cases feels more natural/more direct in Thrift: you're entitled to your opinions. But when your initial emails on this thread start with "the thing is, CQL only handles some types of dynamic column use cases", or say things like "I hope CQL continues to improve so that it supports 100% of the existing use cases", then I'm sorry but it doesn't sound like you're just expressing some personal preference. And since, I'm claiming, those statements are false, I can't force you but I would really appreciate that you refrain from propagating such falsehood (unless of course you can actually substantiate them by actual facts) because it's confusing, especially for new users. -- Sylvain
