My votes: 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason. The minor reason is that I believe we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to reflect this. The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the simple CAS operations supported by Accord to full SQL support with interactive transactions, or even to Calvin-style deterministic transactions with richer semantics.
2. -1, I'm not convinced that we want a one-size-fits-all approach and if we do that Accord is the best one size. 3. +1, although obviously the devil is in the details. I would support, for instance, exposing any interfaces necessary in Cassandra to make it feasible to maintain and use Accord as an out-of-tree plugin for the time being. This lets work on Accord continue while not closing the door on alternatives that make different tradeoffs. I would also support, in that world, CQL extensions that only work with Accord or other “next-gen” transaction managers to start evolving our APIs past what LWT can handle. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Point of order: our project governance states > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Project+Governance> > , > > "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent > reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The > criteria for acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding > vetoes). The vote should remain open for 72 hours." > > No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to > a simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional. > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, >> as discussion has been circular for some time. >> >> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for >> Cassandra? >> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in >> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development? >> >> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and >> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority >> votes of the PMC. >> >> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you >> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. >> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will >> halt for the time being. >> >> This vote will be open for 72 hours. >> > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced > -- Jonathan Ellis co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
