[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4495?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13450782#comment-13450782
]
Rick Shaw commented on CASSANDRA-4495:
--------------------------------------
I would suggest adding {{getString(ByteBuffer bytes)}} and {{getType()}} as
well. The JDBC specific stuff like {{isCurrency()}} and {{isSigned()}} are of
course easily moved over to client side.
> Don't tie client side use of AbstractType to JDBC
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-4495
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4495
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.3
>
>
> We currently expose the AbstractType to java clients that want to reuse them
> though the cql.jdbc.* classes. I think this shouldn't be tied to the JDBC
> standard. JDBC was make for SQL DB, which Cassandra is not (CQL is not SQL
> and will never be). Typically, there is a fair amount of the JDBC standard
> that cannot be implemented with C*, and there is a number of specificity of
> C* that are not in JDBC (typically the set and maps collections).
> So I propose to extract simple type classes with just a compose and decompose
> method (but without ties to jdbc, which would allow all the jdbc specific
> method those types have) in the purpose of exporting that in a separate jar
> for clients (we could put that in a org.apache.cassandra.type package for
> instance). We could then deprecate the jdbc classes with basically the same
> schedule than CQL2.
> Let me note that this is *not* saying there shouldn't be a JDBC driver for
> Cassandra.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
