> 1. There does not seem to be a notion of a reflexive o.a.c.cql.jdbc.* class > for the new collection classes in o.a.c.db.marshall. Is that intentional or > was that to be "left to be implemented student", which for me is now. I am > trying to make sure I understand to broader design so I do not go off half > cocked.
There isn't one yet, no. We probably need to get CASSANDRA-4453 in first though, as it brings real compose and decompose methods for the collections. As a side note, I don't like at all that we have those jdbc type classes inside Cassandra. That is, I understand that we want to allow java clients to use the AbstractType classe without pulling all of C*, but making that jdbc specific feels like a mistake. Anyway, that a separate debate and I'll open a ticket for that, just wanted to bring it up. > 2. JSON does not have a rich enough vocabulary to imply all of the CQL types > without this additional information. JSON really just was a kind of first try, because it made it easy to test the collection code. CASSANDRA-4453 brings a more suitable encoding (I note that the currently patch attached stick to json for thrift, but as I said in the comments, it's a one line change to modify that). -- Sylvain
