Yeah, just so. Evan
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Mark McBride<[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I missed that. The equivalents are > > Database -> Keyspace > Record set -> Column Family > Record (w/key) > Field set -> Super Column > Field -> Column > > Is that right? > > ---Mark > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Evan Weaver<[email protected]> wrote: >> The idea is that "field set" is the direct equivalent of super column. >> No internal changes there. >> >> Not every record set will have field sets; some will just have fields. >> >> Evan >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Mark McBride<[email protected]> wrote: >>> One question, how are super columns handled here? Is it just nested >>> field sets? That's the only potential confusion I see. >>> >>> ---Mark >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Viktor Klang<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> +1, makes much more sense. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Curt Micol <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Evan Weaver<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > I think the below scheme successfully avoids the current >>>>> > misconceptions, and addresses the issues raised in the previous >>>>> > thread. >>>>> >>>>> +1 from me. I also offer my services on the name change. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> # Curt Micol >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Viktor Klang >>>> >>>> Rogue Scala-head >>>> >>>> Blog: klangism.blogspot.com >>>> Twttr: viktorklang >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Evan Weaver >> > -- Evan Weaver
