On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:23:21 -0600 Jonathan Mischo <[email protected]> wrote:
JM> The problem I see with this is that you can't have a single connection JM> accessing multiple keyspaces at once. I can think of some cases where JM> having a single connection access and differentiate between two JM> keyspaces would be advantageous, especially in certain kinds of JM> reporting applications. Otherwise, you force the creation and JM> maintenance of multiple connection pools on the client side, which JM> isn't as resource efficient. JM> This goes back to the concept we were talking about on IRC yesterday JM> where a single user may have access to more than one keyspace. If you JM> authenticate and the system authorizes access to multiple keyspaces, JM> you should have access to them from the same connection, IMHO, since JM> that's a pretty well established pattern. It would also keep the API the same as it is now, just adding a login() method. I am mildly in favor of allowing multiple keyspaces but Jonathan Ellis seems to prefer the other variant and he made some valid points too. I don't know if you guys want to vote or what, but I can get started with the auth backend work regardless of the API direction. Ted
