Hi Maxim! I just wanted to resurface this thread as it looks like it felt down the cracks (unless I missed something?). I am excited about this feature as well (it should also help with the configuration via CQL we also discussed on CEP-44).
I guess that the CEP has been up for discussion for a while, and if there is no further feedback or concerns, we could call a vote on it? Regards, Bernardo > On Jul 29, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Maxim Muzafarov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > Now that the dust has settled on the Picocli transition, I would like > to update my prototype and prepare it for review. It will take some > time, but I hope to have everything ready within the next couple of > months. Although we haven't voted on this CEP yet, as far as I can > see, there is more or less consensus on the path forward. > > So, my question is: > > Should we wait until the prototype is ready for review, or should we > initiate a vote? I saw some concerns about this CEP online since it > hasn't been voted on, but I'm still eager to implement it. Anyway, a > new feature flag will be added within implementation and the feature > will be disabled by default in the next release. > > >> no. Maxim and I have had some offline discussions. We need to make some >> changes before we can be ready to vote on it. > > I believe this has already been addressed. I've added new sections, > "Command Authorization" [1] and "AdminPort"[2] to the CEP. > Let me know if this is okay with you, Dinesh. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-38%3A+CQL+Management+API#CEP38:CQLManagementAPI-CommandAuthorization > [2] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=278465810#CEP38:CQLManagementAPI-AdminPort > > On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 20:11, Dinesh Joshi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> no. Maxim and I have had some offline discussions. We need to make some >> changes before we can be ready to vote on it. >> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:09 AM Patrick McFadin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> There is no VOTE thread for this CEP. Is this ready for one? >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 3:28 AM Maxim Muzafarov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jon, >>>> >>>> That sounds good. Let's make these commands rely on the settings >>>> virtual table and keep the initial changes as minimal as possible. >>>> >>>> We've also scheduled a Cassandra Contributor Meeting on January 30th >>>> 2024, so I'll prepare some slides with everything we've got so far and >>>> try to prepare some drafts to demonstrate the design. >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Contributor+Meeting >>>> >>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 00:55, Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's great to see where this is going and thanks for the discussion on >>>>> the ML. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think adding two new ways of accomplishing the same thing >>>>> is a net negative. It means we need more documentation and creates >>>>> inconsistencies across tools and users. The tradeoffs you've listed are >>>>> worth considering, but in my opinion adding 2 new ways to accomplish the >>>>> same thing hurts the project more than it helps. >>>>> >>>>>> - I'd like to see a symmetry between the JMX and CQL APIs, so that users >>>>>> will have a sense of the commands they are using and are less >>>>> likely to check the documentation; >>>>> >>>>> I've worked with a couple hundred teams and I can only think of a few who >>>>> use JMX directly. It's done very rarely. After 10 years, I still have >>>>> to look up the JMX syntax to do anything useful, especially if there's >>>>> any quoting involved. Power users might know a handful of JMX commands >>>>> by heart, but I suspect most have a handful of bash scripts they use >>>>> instead, or have a sidecar. I also think very few users will migrate >>>>> their management code from JMX to CQL, nor do I imagine we'll move our >>>>> own tools until the `disablebinary` problem is solved. >>>>> >>>>>> - It will be easier for us to move the nodetool from the jmx client that >>>>>> is used under the hood to an implementation based on a java-driver and >>>>>> use the CQL for the same; >>>>> >>>>> I can't imagine this would make a material difference. If someone's >>>>> rewriting a nodetool command, how much time will be spent replacing the >>>>> JMX call with a CQL one? Looking up a virtual table isn't going to be >>>>> what consumes someone's time in this process. Again, this won't be done >>>>> without solving `nodetool disablebinary`. >>>>> >>>>>> if we have cassandra-15254 merged, it will cost almost nothing to >>>>>> support the exec syntax for setting properties; >>>>> >>>>> My concern is more about the weird user experience of having two ways of >>>>> doing the same thing, less about the technical overhead of adding a >>>>> second implementation. I propose we start simple, see if any of the >>>>> reasons you've listed are actually a real problem, then if they are, >>>>> address the issue in a follow up. >>>>> >>>>> If I'm wrong, it sounds like it's fairly easy to add `exec` for changing >>>>> configs. If I'm right, we'll have two confusing syntaxes forever. It's >>>>> a lot easier to add something later than take it away. >>>>> >>>>> How does that sound? >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 7:55 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Some operations will no doubt require a stored procedure syntax, but >>>>>>> perhaps it would be a good idea to split the work into two: >>>>>> >>>>>> These are exactly the first steps I have in mind: >>>>>> >>>>>> [Ready for review] >>>>>> Allow UPDATE on settings virtual table to change running configurations >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15254 >>>>>> >>>>>> This issue is specifically aimed at changing the configuration >>>>>> properties we are talking about (value is in yaml format): >>>>>> e.g. UPDATE system_views.settings SET compaction_throughput = 128Mb/s; >>>>>> >>>>>> [Ready for review] >>>>>> Expose all table metrics in virtual table >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572 >>>>>> >>>>>> This is to observe the running configuration and all available metrics: >>>>>> e.g. select * from system_views.thread_pools; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope both of the issues above will become part of the trunk branch >>>>>> before we move on to the CQL management commands. In this topic, I'd >>>>>> like to discuss the design of the CQL API, and gather feedback, so >>>>>> that I can prepare a draft of changes to look at without any >>>>>> surprises, and that's exactly what this discussion is about. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> cqlsh> UPDATE system.settings SET compaction_throughput = 128; >>>>>> cqlsh> exec setcompactionthroughput 128 >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't mind removing the exec command from the CQL command API which >>>>>> is intended to change settings. Personally, I see the second option as >>>>>> just an alias for the first command, and in fact, they will have the >>>>>> same implementation under the hood, so please consider the rationale >>>>>> below: >>>>>> >>>>>> - I'd like to see a symmetry between the JMX and CQL APIs, so that >>>>>> users will have a sense of the commands they are using and are less >>>>>> likely to check the documentation; >>>>>> - It will be easier for us to move the nodetool from the jmx client >>>>>> that is used under the hood to an implementation based on a >>>>>> java-driver and use the CQL for the same; >>>>>> - if we have cassandra-15254 merged, it will cost almost nothing to >>>>>> support the exec syntax for setting properties; >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 20:13, Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ugh, I moved some stuff around and 2 paragraphs got merged that >>>>>>> shouldn't have been. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think there's no way we could rip out JMX, there's just too many >>>>>>> benefits to having it and effectively zero benefits to removing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding disablebinary, part of me wonders if this is a bit of a >>>>>>> hammer, and what we really want is "disable binary for non-admins". >>>>>>> I'm not sure what the best path is to get there. The local unix socket >>>>>>> might be the easiest path as it allows us to disable network binary >>>>>>> easily and still allow local admins, and allows the OS to reject the >>>>>>> incoming connections vs passing that work onto a connection handler >>>>>>> which would have to evaluate whether or not the user can connect. If a >>>>>>> node is already in a bad spot requring disable binary, it's probably >>>>>>> not a good idea to have it get DDOS'ed as part of the remediation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for multiple emails. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:11 PM Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Syntactically, if we’re updating settings like compaction throughput, >>>>>>>>> I would prefer to simply update a virtual settings table >>>>>>>>> e.g. UPDATE system.settings SET compaction_throughput = 128 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with this, sorry if that wasn't clear in my previous email. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some operations will no doubt require a stored procedure syntax, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The alternative to the stored procedure syntax is to have first class >>>>>>>> support for operations like REPAIR or COMPACT, which could be >>>>>>>> interesting. It might be a little nicer if the commands are first >>>>>>>> class citizens. I'm not sure what the downside would be besides adding >>>>>>>> complexity to the parser. I think I like the idea as it would allow >>>>>>>> for intuitive tab completion (REPAIR <tab>) and mentally fit in with >>>>>>>> the rest of the permission system, and be fairly obvious what >>>>>>>> permission relates to what action. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cqlsh > GRANT INCREMENTAL REPAIR ON mykeyspace.mytable TO jon; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I realize the ability to grant permissions could be done for the >>>>>>>> stored procedure syntax as well, but I think it's a bit more >>>>>>>> consistent to represent it the same way as DDL and probably better for >>>>>>>> the end user. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Postgres seems to generally do admin stuff with SELECT function(): >>>>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/functions-admin.html. It feels a >>>>>>>> bit weird to me to use SELECT to do things like kill DB connections, >>>>>>>> but that might just be b/c it's not how I typically work with a >>>>>>>> database. VACUUM is a standalone command though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Curious to hear what people's thoughts are on this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to see us move to decentralised structured settings >>>>>>>>> management at the same time, so that we can set properties for the >>>>>>>>> whole cluster, or data centres, or individual nodes via the same >>>>>>>>> mechanism - all from any node in the cluster. I would be happy to >>>>>>>>> help out with this work, if time permits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This would be nice. Spinnaker has this feature and I found it to be >>>>>>>> very valuable at Netflix when making large changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding JMX - I think since it's about as close as we can get to >>>>>>>> "free" I don't really consider it to be additional overhead, a decent >>>>>>>> escape hatch, and I can't see us removing any functionality that most >>>>>>>> teams would consider critical. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We need something that's available for use before the node comes >>>>>>>>> fully online >>>>>>>>> Supporting backwards compat, especially for automated ops (i.e. >>>>>>>>> nodetool, JMX, etc), is crucial. Painful, but crucial. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think there's no way we could rip out JMX, there's just too many >>>>>>>> benefits to having it and effectively zero benefits to removing. Part >>>>>>>> of me wonders if this is a bit of a hammer, and what we really want is >>>>>>>> "disable binary for non-admins". I'm not sure what the best path is >>>>>>>> to get there. The local unix socket might be the easiest path as it >>>>>>>> allows us to disable network binary easily and still allow local >>>>>>>> admins, and allows the OS to reject the incoming connections vs >>>>>>>> passing that work onto a connection handler which would have to >>>>>>>> evaluate whether or not the user can connect. If a node is already in >>>>>>>> a bad spot requring disable binary, it's probably not a good idea to >>>>>>>> have it get DDOS'ed as part of the remediation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's safe to say there's no appetite to remove JMX, at least >>>>>>>> not for anyone that would have to rework their entire admin control >>>>>>>> plane, plus whatever is out there in OSS provisioning tools like >>>>>>>> puppet / chef / etc that rely on JMX. I see no value whatsoever in >>>>>>>> removing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I should probably have phrased my earlier email a bit differently. >>>>>>>> Maybe this is better: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fundamentally, I think it's better for the project if administration >>>>>>>> is fully supported over CQL in addition to JMX, without introducing a >>>>>>>> redundant third option, with the project's preference being CQL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:10 AM Benedict Elliott Smith >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Syntactically, if we’re updating settings like compaction throughput, >>>>>>>>> I would prefer to simply update a virtual settings table >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> e.g. UPDATE system.settings SET compaction_throughput = 128 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some operations will no doubt require a stored procedure syntax, but >>>>>>>>> perhaps it would be a good idea to split the work into two: one part >>>>>>>>> to address settings like those above, and another for maintenance >>>>>>>>> operations such as triggering major compactions, repair and the like? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to see us move to decentralised structured settings >>>>>>>>> management at the same time, so that we can set properties for the >>>>>>>>> whole cluster, or data centres, or individual nodes via the same >>>>>>>>> mechanism - all from any node in the cluster. I would be happy to >>>>>>>>> help out with this work, if time permits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8 Jan 2024, at 11:42, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fundamentally, I think it's better for the project if administration >>>>>>>>> is fully done over CQL and we have a consistent, single way of doing >>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Strongly agree here. With 2 caveats: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Supporting backwards compat, especially for automated ops (i.e. >>>>>>>>> nodetool, JMX, etc), is crucial. Painful, but crucial. >>>>>>>>> We need something that's available for use before the node comes >>>>>>>>> fully online; the point Jeff always brings up when we discuss moving >>>>>>>>> away from JMX. So long as we have some kind of "out-of-band" access >>>>>>>>> to nodes or accommodation for that, we should be good. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For context on point 2, see slack: >>>>>>>>> https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CK23JSY2K/p1688745128122749?thread_ts=1688662169.018449&cid=CK23JSY2K >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I point out that JMX works before and after the native protocol is >>>>>>>>> running (startup, shutdown, joining, leaving), and also it's >>>>>>>>> semi-common for us to disable the native protocol in certain >>>>>>>>> circumstances, so at the very least, we'd then need to implement a >>>>>>>>> totally different cql protocol interface just for administration, >>>>>>>>> which nobody has committed to building yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this is a solvable problem, and I think the benefits of >>>>>>>>> having a single, elegant way of interacting with a cluster and >>>>>>>>> configuring it justifies the investment for us as a project. Assuming >>>>>>>>> someone has the cycles to, you know, actually do the work. :D >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024, at 10:41 PM, Jon Haddad wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I like the idea of the ability to execute certain commands via CQL, >>>>>>>>> but I think it only makes sense for the nodetool commands that cause >>>>>>>>> an action to take place, such as compact or repair. We already have >>>>>>>>> virtual tables, I don't think we need another layer to run >>>>>>>>> informational queries. I see little value in having the following >>>>>>>>> (I'm using exec here for simplicity): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cqlsh> exec tpstats >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> which returns a string in addition to: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cqlsh> select * from system_views.thread_pools >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> which returns structured data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd also rather see updatable configuration virtual tables instead of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cqlsh> exec setcompactionthroughput 128 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fundamentally, I think it's better for the project if administration >>>>>>>>> is fully done over CQL and we have a consistent, single way of doing >>>>>>>>> things. I'm not dead set on it, I just think less is more in a lot >>>>>>>>> of situations, this being one of them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 2:56 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Happy New Year to everyone! I'd like to thank everyone for their >>>>>>>>> questions, because answering them forces us to move towards the right >>>>>>>>> solution, and I also like the ML discussions for the time they give to >>>>>>>>> investigate the code :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm deliberately trying to limit the scope of the initial solution >>>>>>>>> (e.g. exclude the agent part) to keep the discussion short and clear, >>>>>>>>> but it's also important to have a glimpse of what we can do next once >>>>>>>>> we've finished with the topic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My view of the Command<> is that it is an abstraction in the broader >>>>>>>>> sense of an operation that can be performed on the local node, >>>>>>>>> involving one of a few internal components. This means that updating a >>>>>>>>> property in the settings virtual table via an update statement, or >>>>>>>>> executing e.g. the setconcurrentcompactors command are just aliases of >>>>>>>>> the same internal command via different APIs. Another example is the >>>>>>>>> netstats command, which simply aggregates the MessageService metrics >>>>>>>>> and returns them in a human-readable format (just another way of >>>>>>>>> looking at key-value metric pairs). More broadly, the command input is >>>>>>>>> Map<String, String> and String as the result (or List<String>). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Abe mentioned, Command and CommandRegistry should be largely based >>>>>>>>> on the nodetool command set at the beginning. We have a few options >>>>>>>>> for how we can initially construct command metadata during the >>>>>>>>> registry implementation (when moving command metadata from the >>>>>>>>> nodetool to the core part), so I'm planning to consult with the >>>>>>>>> command representations of the k8cassandra project in the way of any >>>>>>>>> further registry adoptions have zero problems (by writing a test >>>>>>>>> openapi registry exporter and comparing the representation results). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, the MVP is the following: >>>>>>>>> - Command >>>>>>>>> - CommandRegistry >>>>>>>>> - CQLCommandExporter >>>>>>>>> - JMXCommandExporter >>>>>>>>> - the nodetool uses the JMXCommandExporter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> = Answers = >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you have in mind specifically there? Do you plan on >>>>>>>>>> rewriting a brand new implementation which would be partially >>>>>>>>>> inspired by our agent? Or would the project integrate our agent code >>>>>>>>>> in-tree or as a dependency? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Personally, I like the state of the k8ssandra project as it is now. My >>>>>>>>> understanding is that the server part of a database always lags behind >>>>>>>>> the client and sidecar parts in terms of the jdk version and the >>>>>>>>> features it provides. In contrast, sidecars should always be on top of >>>>>>>>> the market, so if we want to make an agent part in-tree, this should >>>>>>>>> be carefully considered for the flexibility which we may lose, as we >>>>>>>>> will not be able to change the agent part within the sidecar. The only >>>>>>>>> closest change I can see is that we can remove the interceptor part >>>>>>>>> once the CQL command interface is available. I suggest we move the >>>>>>>>> agent part to phase 2 and research it. wdyt? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How are the results of the commands expressed to the CQL client? >>>>>>>>>> Since the command is being treated as CQL, I guess it will be rows, >>>>>>>>>> right? If yes, some of the nodetool commands output are a bit >>>>>>>>>> hierarchical in nature (e.g. cfstats, netstats etc...). How are >>>>>>>>>> these cases handled? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the result of the execution should be a simple string (or set >>>>>>>>> of strings), which by its nature matches the nodetool output. I would >>>>>>>>> avoid building complex output or output schemas for now to simplify >>>>>>>>> the initial changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any changes expected at client/driver side? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to keep the initial changes to a server part only, to avoid >>>>>>>>> scope inflation. For the driver part, I have checked the ExecutionInfo >>>>>>>>> interface provided by the java-driver, which should probably be used >>>>>>>>> as a command execution status holder. We'd like to have a unique >>>>>>>>> command execution id for each command that is executed on the node, so >>>>>>>>> the ExecutionInfo should probably hold such an id. Currently it has >>>>>>>>> the UUID getTracingId(), which is not well suited for our case and I >>>>>>>>> think further changes and follow-ups will be required here (including >>>>>>>>> the binary protocol, I think). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The term COMMAND is a bit abstract I feel (subjective)... And I also >>>>>>>>>> feel the settings part is overlapping with virtual tables. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think we should keep the term Command as broad as it possible. As >>>>>>>>> long as we have a single implementation of a command, and the cost of >>>>>>>>> maintaining that piece of the source code is low, it's even better if >>>>>>>>> we have a few ways to achieve the same result using different APIs. >>>>>>>>> Personally, the only thing I would vote for is the separation of >>>>>>>>> command and metric terms (they shouldn't be mixed up). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How are the responses of different operations expressed through the >>>>>>>>>> Command API? If the Command Registry Adapters depend upon the >>>>>>>>>> command metadata for invoking/validating the command, then I think >>>>>>>>>> there has to be a way for them to interpret the response format >>>>>>>>>> also, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure, that I've got the question correctly. Are you talking >>>>>>>>> about the command execution result schema and the validation of that >>>>>>>>> schema? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For now, I see the interface as follows, the result of the execution >>>>>>>>> is a type that can be converted to the same string as the nodetool has >>>>>>>>> for the corresponding command (so that the outputs match): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Command<A, R> >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> printResult(A argument, R result, Consumer<String> printer); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 16:51, Abe Ratnofsky <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Adding to Hari's comments: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any changes expected at client/driver side? While using >>>>>>>>>>> JMX/nodetool, it is clear that the command/operations are getting >>>>>>>>>>> executed against which Cassandra node. But a client can connect to >>>>>>>>>>> multiple hosts and trigger queries, then how can it ensure that >>>>>>>>>>> commands are executed against the desired Cassandra instance? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Clients are expected to set the node for the given CQL statement in >>>>>>>>>> cases like this; see docstring for example: >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra-java-driver/blob/4.x/core/src/main/java/com/datastax/oss/driver/api/core/cql/Statement.java#L124-L147 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The term COMMAND is a bit abstract I feel (subjective). Some of the >>>>>>>>>>> examples quoted are referring to updating settings (for example: >>>>>>>>>>> EXECUTE COMMAND setconcurrentcompactors WITH >>>>>>>>>>> concurrent_compactors=5;) and some are referring to operations. >>>>>>>>>>> Updating settings and running operations are considerably different >>>>>>>>>>> things. They may have to be handled in their own way. And I also >>>>>>>>>>> feel the settings part is overlapping with virtual tables. If >>>>>>>>>>> virtual tables support writes (at least the settings virtual >>>>>>>>>>> table), then settings can be updated using the virtual table itself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with this - I actually think it would be clearer if this was >>>>>>>>>> referred to as nodetool, if the set of commands is going to be >>>>>>>>>> largely based on nodetool at the beginning. There is a lot of >>>>>>>>>> documentation online that references nodetool by name, and changing >>>>>>>>>> the nomenclature would make that existing documentation harder to >>>>>>>>>> understand. If a user can understand this as "nodetool, but better >>>>>>>>>> and over CQL not JMX" I think that's a clearer transition than a new >>>>>>>>>> concept of "commands". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I understand that this proposal includes more than just nodetool, >>>>>>>>>> but there's a benefit to having a tool with a name, and a web search >>>>>>>>>> for "cassandra commands" is going to have more competition and >>>>>>>>>> ambiguity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
