On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 18:47 -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > http://github.com/eevans/cassandra/tree/CQL > > > > You need to be sure you're checking out the "CQL" branch. > > Meta-comment: You probably should not call it CQL. That name is > already used in multiple standards for similar purposes. These aren't > dead standards either, for some types of non-SQL database applications > you are required to implement them. I once wrote a query language > bridge between a couple CQL database standards, and the current mess > already confuses the hell out of people. It would not surprise me if > someone is working on a CQL implementation (pick your standard) that > uses Cassandra as a backend since it would be a good fit for some use > cases.
Huh, I wasn't aware. The name is wrong on many levels, I guess I have to add one more to the list. :) It's just so damn indulgent though. Think about it: * You can pronounce it C-quell in conversations with your friends. When the inevitable confusion occurs, you can say, "What? No, I mean *Cassandra* Query Language.". Bonus points for a side-ways look of indignation. * If someone asks if it's a NoSQL database you can answer, "No, it's not a NoCQL, it's a NoSQL." Think of all the possibilities using double negatives. * In one fell swoop we make all other NoSQL databases, and all SQL databases, NoCQL. * Considering my history in naming stuff, it's a total setup for any number of jokes at my expense. > To highlight the insanity of the "CQL" namespace, some government > applications require implementation of two CQL standards where the > "CQL" acronym expands to the *exact same name* and fill almost > identical roles. This creates several levels of hell for developers. > > A less non-unique name would probably be beneficial. :-) Yeah, maybe. -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com
