[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15319507#comment-15319507
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-7622:
---------------------------------------------
bq. we'll want to be able to write to those tables as well
I never said we wouldn't allow that, just that exposing metrics read-only is a
viable first version and want to start with that. Allowing writing would
certainly be step 2, and that would likely come pretty quickly after step 1
(who knows, it might even make the same version than step 1), but you have to
update different parts to get writes and so it's imo simpler (for the author
and the reviewer) to split that part up. In other words, I think doing
read-only first and adding writes seconds is more incremental technically, and
I don't think it's a big deal if we get read-only in say 3.10 and only allow
writing in say 3.12.
> Implement virtual tables
> ------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Assignee: Jeff Jirsa
> Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> There are a variety of reasons to want virtual tables, which would be any
> table that would be backed by an API, rather than data explicitly managed and
> stored as sstables.
> One possible use case would be to expose JMX data through CQL as a
> resurrection of CASSANDRA-3527.
> Another is a more general framework to implement the ability to expose yaml
> configuration information. So it would be an alternate approach to
> CASSANDRA-7370.
> A possible implementation would be in terms of CASSANDRA-7443, but I am not
> presupposing.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
