> > The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the simple CAS > operations supported by Accord to full SQL support > We have not discussed full SQL support and I know of no existing consensus on the topic of the evolution of our developer APIs. It may be worth opening up a ML DISCUSS thread if this is something you feel strongly about Jonathan / Henrik.
As to Accord as proposed, the CEP, the API, and incremental dev: 1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:38 AM Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> wrote: > 1. +1 > 2. +1 > 3. +1 > > Benjamin > > Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 09:03, Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> a écrit : > > > 1. +1 > > 2. +1 > > 3. +1 > > > > Thanks, > > Sam > > > > > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, 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. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >
