> the argument that something new should be written because an existing project > has tech debt, and we'll do it the right way this time, is a pretty common > software engineering mistake. The thing you’re replacing usually needs to > have some really serious problems to make it worth replacing.
Thanks for writing this Blake. I'm no fan of writing from scratch. Working with other people's code is the joy of open-source, imho. Reaper is not a big project. None of its java files are large or complicated. This is not the C* codebase we're talking about. It comes with strict code style in place (which the build enforces), unit and integration tests. The tech debt that I think of first is removing stuff that we would no longer want to support if it were inside the Cassandra project. A number of recent refactorings have proved it's an easy codebase to work with. It's also worth noting that Cassandra-4.x adoption is still some away, in which time Reaper will only continue to grow and gain users. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
