[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15158764#comment-15158764
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-11213:
----------------------------------------------
And to expand a bit on what's above, I think we have 2 "conceptual"
relationship regarding what's currently {{ClusteringPrefix}}:
# both {{Clustering}} and {{RangeTombstone.Bound}} are identifying an
{{Unfiltered}} (respectively a {{Row}} and a {{RangeTombstoneMarker}})
# both {{Slice.Bound}} and {{RangeTombstone}} represent some bound of data.
So it feels that ideally we'd have both a super type to {{Clustering}} and
{{RangeTombstone.Bound}} (which incidentally would be what {{IndexInfo}}
contains), and a {{AbstractBound}} super type of {{Slice.Bound}} and
{{RangeTombsone.Bound}} mostly for code reuse.
> Improve ClusteringPrefix hierarchy
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-11213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11213
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Branimir Lambov
> Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> As noted by [~blambov] on CASSANDRA-11158, having {{RangeTombstone.Bound}} be
> a subclass of {{Slice.Bound}} is somewhat inconsistent. I'd argue in fact
> that conceptually neither should really be a subclass of the other as none is
> a special case of the other and they are use in strictly non-overlapping
> places ({{Slice.Bound}} is for slices which are used for selecting data while
> {{RangeTombstone.Bound}} is for range tombstone which actually represent some
> type of data).
> We should figure out a cleaner hierarchy of this, which probably mean
> slightly changing the {{ClusteringPrefix}} hierarchy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
