IMO the window for making this kind of change has passed. We've talked about finalizing the 0.4 api weeks ago, we got a beta out with it, and it does the job. The timeline wasn't a surprise to anyone paying attention to the list. It's time to move on.
-Jonathan On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 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. > > The names are memorable and short, Anglo-Saxon-style, and take > advantage of existing database concepts in non-conflicting ways. They > are not ambiguous or novel. They descend step-by-step from the > container to the thing contained. > > Proposal 2: > > Database > Record set > Record (w/key) > Field set > Field > > Notes: > * Database is the same as in SQL/CouchDB/MongoDB > * Record set is based on "record", below. It expresses a container of > unique rows, without the BigTable baggage (see PS). > * Record is the same as row, without the relational baggage. > * Field set is based on "field", below, and parallels "record set". > It expresses a container of unique fields. > * Field is the same as in CouchDB, and does not carry the SQL baggage > of "column", or the relational-theory baggage of "attribute". > > I think if we adopted these, we would quickly move from "most > confusing data model" to "least confusing", based on my research into > other popular terminology > (http://markmail.org/thread/6vys3hk774zcrd6v). > > Evan > > ---- > > PS. The implementation of column families hasn't changed from > BigTable, but the use in modeling has. Common Cassandra designs are > more row-oriented than column-oriented. > > With that in mind, keyspace, row, and super-column could also each be > called column family. They all have sets of related columns in them, > among other things. Everything but the column itself is some kind of > "column family". This is a big stumbling block. > > I want a new user to be able to look at any level and answer "what is > the immediate container of this object?" If they can't do that, then > the term is ambiguous. > > -- > Evan Weaver >
