[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-838?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12839701#action_12839701
 ] 

Nicholas Telford commented on CASSANDRA-838:
--------------------------------------------

So multiget_slice returns map<string, list<COSC>> rather than list<KeySlice> so 
that it's possible to access the results by a given key name? (e.g. slice = 
results.get(key))

What's the reason for not using KeySlice for get_slice? Is it simply that 
there's no need to encapsulate the list<COSC> within another structure?

> Return type of get_slice and multiget_slice is inconsistent with return type 
> of get_range_slices
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-838
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-838
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: 0.6
>            Reporter: Nicholas Telford
>            Priority: Minor
>
> As of 0.6.0-beta2, the return type for get_slice and multiget_slice are 
> defined as: list<ColumnOrSuperColumn> and map<string, 
> list<ColumnOrSuperColumn>> respectively.
> The return type of get_range_slices, is defined as: list<KeySlice>
> KeySlice encapsulates a slice (the "key" for the slice and it's 
> ColumnOrSuperColumns).
> This is especially odd since multiget_slice and get_range_slices are 
> essentially the same operation, with one getting slices for a specific list 
> of keys and the other getting slices for a range of keys. While both return 
> types are acceptable ways of representing slices, it would be more consistent 
> to just use one - I'm going to assume KeySlice is preferable.
> I'd like to suggest that get_slice and multiget_slice be modified so that 
> their return types are: KeySlice and list<KeySlice> respectively.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to