[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17480078#comment-17480078
]
Benedict Elliott Smith edited comment on CASSANDRA-17188 at 1/21/22, 1:46 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a "flavor" of configuration? No coherent design for the configuration
file, and how it relates to existing context, has been presented for this epic.
This should be basic hygiene for API design in a mature project, just like
testing and QA. Once such a design has been proposed, alternatives (such as the
one I favour) can be weighed up, but right now we're talking about favouring
uncoordinated changes that consider only the change in question and none of the
broader context - even the future work part of the same declared epic. That is
really bad hygiene, whatever "flavor" you prefer.
But I anyway strongly dislike the idea of dismissing API design considerations
as flavours. There are tensions in all API design, and they need to be
discussed. While there may be people who prefer one approach over another, this
is true even for deeply technical topics, and it does not make it any less an
important consideration. Dismissing these tensions is lazy, and lands us in a
mess of incoherent design like we are addressing in CASSANDRA-15234, which is
only one part of the codebase.
was (Author: benedict):
What is a "flavor" of configuration? No coherent design for the configuration
file, and how it relates to existing context, has been presented for this epic.
This should be basic hygiene for API design in a mature project, just like
testing and QA. Once such a design has been proposed, alternatives (such as the
one I favour) can be weighed up, but right now we're talking about favouring
uncoordinated changes that consider only the change in question and none of the
broader context - even the future work part of the same declared epic. That is
really bad hygiene, whatever "flavor" you prefer.
> Guardrails for consistency levels
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-17188
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17188
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Feature/Guardrails
> Reporter: Andres de la Peña
> Assignee: Andres de la Peña
> Priority: Normal
> Fix For: 4.x
>
>
> Add guardrails for read/write consistency levels, for example:
> {code:java}
> # Guardrail to warn about or reject read consistency levels.
> # By default all consistency levels are allowed.
> read_consistency_levels:
> warned: []
> disallowed: []
> # Guardrail to warn about or reject write consistency levels.
> # By default all consistency levels are allowed.
> write_consistency_levels:
> warned: []
> disallowed: []
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
