Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

Having been through a bunch of refactors in other projects, I would suggest doing small incremental patches isolated in related parts of the code. It would also be nice if you could give us a heads up on changes you're making. Best of luck! Dinesh On Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 3:04:43 PM

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

+1 - can help with sections of the code -- Rahul Singh rahul.si...@anant.us Anant Corporation On Mar 21, 2018, 4:25 PM -0500, Lerh Chuan Low , wrote: > For reasons others have mentioned (nightmare to continuously update branch > and resolve merge conflicts, existing

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

+1 if you are willing to take it on. As the person who performed the Table->Keyspace rename of 2.0, I say good luck! From hindsight of doing that, as others suggested, I would come at this in multiple tickets. I would suggest a simple class rename with intellij refactoring tools or something

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

For reasons others have mentioned (nightmare to continuously update branch and resolve merge conflicts, existing patches/big features..) it will be a nightmare. It seems like in software projects (just basing it off personal experience) people typically refactor if a ticket they are working on

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

Well, that was quick. TL;DR Redistributing any part of the OpenJDK is basically a no-go. Thus, that option is off the table. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > ftr, I've sent a message to legal-discuss to inquire about the licensing > aspect of the

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

ftr, I've sent a message to legal-discuss to inquire about the licensing aspect of the OpenJDK as we've been discussing. I believe anyone can follow the thread by subscribing to the legal-discuss@ ML, or you can wait for updates on this thread as I get them. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Jason

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

If we went down this path, I can't imagine we would build OpenJDK ourselves, but probably build a release with jlink or javapackager. I haven't done homework on that yet, but i *think* it uses a blessed OpenJDK release for the packaging (or perhaps whatever JDK you happen to be compiling/building

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

The idea was not about building a custom JDK and ship it along with Cassandra, rather than using the new modular run-time images feature [0] introduced in Java 9. See also the link posted by Jason [1] for an practical introduction. [0] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/220 [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On 03/21/2018 04:52 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: This would certainly mitigate a lot of the core problems with the new release model. Has there been any public statements of plans/intent with regards to distros doing this? Since the latest official LTS version is Java 8, that's the only one with

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:52:06 -0400, you wrote: >> Even if you are not running say Debian, or RedHat, those distributions >> will be backporting critical fixes to their JVMs; This work is going >> to be done, and will be available to anyone. >This would certainly mitigate a lot of the core

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

fwiw, a naive internet search turned up [1]. tl;dr use the java 9's jlink (or java8's javapackager) to build a full app+jre package for distribution. I started digging into the legal aspects, and (trying to) searching legal-discuss@. May just send an email to them later today to speed up this

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On 21.03.2018 15:41, Ariel Weisberg wrote: > I'm not clear on what building and bundling our own JRE/JDK accomplishes? If we talk about OpenJDK, there will be only a single Java version supported at any time and that is the latest Java version (11, 12, ..). There is no overlap between supported

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

> Even if you are not running say Debian, or RedHat, those distributions > will be backporting critical fixes to their JVMs; This work is going > to be done, and will be available to anyone. This would certainly mitigate a lot of the core problems with the new release model. Has there been any

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

Hi, I'm not clear on what building and bundling our own JRE/JDK accomplishes? What is our source for JRE updates going to be? Are we going to build our own and does Oracle release the source for their LTS releases? Are we going to extract LTS updates from CentOS? If the goal of bundling is to

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:04:39 +0100, you wrote: > >>There's also another option, which I just want to mention here for the >>sake of discussion. >> >>Quoting the Oracle Support Roadmap: >>"Instead of relying on a

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:04:39 +0100, you wrote: >> Bundling a custom JRE along with Cassandra, would be convenient in a way >> that we can do all the testing against the bundled Java version. We >> could also

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: >> Wasn't portability supposed to be one of the >> big selling points of Java? > Historically, yes, but their change in release cadence and support > structure is something they're pushing, not us. We have to figure out >

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:04:39 +0100, you wrote: >There's also another option, which I just want to mention here for the >sake of discussion. > >Quoting the Oracle Support Roadmap: >"Instead of relying on a pre-installed standalone JRE, we encourage >application developers to deliver JREs with

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

I was reading up on the bundling possibility the other day as well. I like the idea from release standpoint. And if someone wants to use a different version they can always recompile it themselves. As Stefan pointed out, the main issue I see is the one of how licensing plays out with this.

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

> Wasn't portability supposed to be one of the > big selling points of Java? Historically, yes, but their change in release cadence and support structure is something they're pushing, not us. We have to figure out how to make the best of a change that is, at best, orthogonal to our interests as a

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > There's also another option, which I just want to mention here for the > sake of discussion. > > Quoting the Oracle Support Roadmap: > "Instead of relying on a pre-installed standalone JRE, we encourage > application

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:48 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: [ ... ] > - pure code renaming is one reasonably simple aspect, but quite a few > renaming may have user visible impact. Particularly around JMX where many > things are name based on their class, and to a lesser extend

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

Similar to Josh, I like Stefan's idea, a lot. iirc, the Basho folks used to ship a specific version of erlang with Riak, so it's not a new precedent in the (nosql) database space. I'm not sure about the licensing, though, as openjdk is GPLv2 w/ classpath exception - but I can ask Apache Legal

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

As a gut check, the idea of bundling a JRE with C* appeals to me from a "control your variables" perspective. Simplifies quite a bit of this problem imo. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > There's also another option, which I just want to mention here

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

There's also another option, which I just want to mention here for the sake of discussion. Quoting the Oracle Support Roadmap: "Instead of relying on a pre-installed standalone JRE, we encourage application developers to deliver JREs with their applications." I've played around with Java 9 a

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

I really don't think anyone has been recently against such renaming, and in fact, a _lot_ of renaming *has* already happen over time. The problem, as you carefully noted, is that it's such a big task that there is still a lot to do. Anyway, I've yet to see a patch renaming things to match the CQL

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

I agree that the refactoring make sense but I also know the pain of merging branches with smaller refactorings. When you have to make a patch for several branches and that you have to go through several round of reviews it can be pretty painful. I know that pain too well so I am not in favor of

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

As someone who came to the codebase post CQL but prior to thrift being removed, +1 to refactor. The current mixing of terminology is a complete nightmare. This would also give a good opportunity document a lot of code that simply isn't documented (or incorrect). I'd say it's worth doing it in

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

+10 There are 2 hard problems in CS: naming things and cache invalidation Le 20 mars 2018 23:04, "Jon Haddad" a écrit : > Whenever I hop around in the codebase, one thing that always manages to > slow me down is needing to understand the context of the variable names > that