- I like the name cassandra-ecosystem - We cannot draw dependency direction between Analytics and Sidecar. With Analytics on S3 feature, Analytics can work without Sidecar. Sidecar has many features nothing to do with Analytics. So both can be independent of each other. - The name cassandra-ecosystem allows us to integrate more such features/components into the repo
> On Jun 4, 2026, at 10:50 AM, Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> wrote: > > That all makes sense, Yifan. > > The only issue, it is not actually an issue rather than a consequence > of doing it like that. Imagine that there is a change in Analytics but > none in Sidecar and we release a new version. That means that > Analytics would contain a new patch but Sidecar would be a "dummy" > release. We would bump the version of Sidecar just for the sake of it. > Then people trying to investigate what has changed between these > versions would realize that, awkwardly, nothing changed. > > I can live with it. It is just something to be aware of. > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM Yifan Cai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for the great discussion so far. A few thoughts on the open questions: >> >> Naming >> >> I'd like to suggest cassandra-companion as the name for the merged >> repository. Both existing names create confusion in opposite directions: >> operational features like rolling restart and health monitoring feel out of >> place in cassandra-analytics (Joey's point), while a bulk read/write >> connector library feels out of place in cassandra-sidecar. A new neutral >> name avoids subordinating either project's identity to the other, and is >> broad enough to accommodate future additions beyond Analytics and Sidecar, >> without implying Cassandra core is included, as names like >> cassandra-ecosystem or cassandra-platform might. >> >> For the JIRA project key, CASSCOMP would be a natural fit. >> >> API Compatibility >> >> Jeremiah raises a valid concern — co-locating the client and server removes >> the repo boundary that previously reminded developers they are touching a >> public API surface. Štefan's versioning model addresses the consumer-facing >> question ("what runs with what") well, but we also need developer-facing >> guardrails to mechanically enforce the promise. I'd propose combining three >> layers: >> >> Versioning contract (Štefan's model): same major.minor guarantees a >> compatible Analytics/Sidecar pair; patch releases of Sidecar are safe to >> advance independently; new REST endpoints require a minor bump >> Unified version and release cadence: all modules release together under the >> same version number. This directly aligns with the merge's core motivation >> of reducing coordination overhead. The alternative, independent module >> versioning within the monorepo, would essentially recreate the cross-repo >> coordination friction we are trying to eliminate. Conveniently, Analytics >> and Sidecar are currently at the same version number, so there is no awkward >> jump or reset needed at the point of merge. >> CI enforcement: an OpenAPI contract test that fails if a change breaks the >> API surface relative to the previous release, plus a compatibility matrix >> test that runs the N-1 Analytics client against the current Sidecar server >> Stability annotations: adopt @PublicApi / @InternalApi / @Stable / @Evolving >> / @Deprecated annotations on the Sidecar API surface, following the pattern >> established by Kafka and Elasticsearch. This makes the contract explicit and >> discoverable in code — a developer touching an annotated method immediately >> sees its stability guarantee and since which version it has been public >> >> The three layers are complementary: the versioning model defines the >> promise, annotations mark the contract in code, and CI enforces the promise >> mechanically. The unified release cadence ensures the promise is always >> evaluated as a whole. >> >> As a side note — Cassandra core currently lacks this kind of API stability >> clarity, which creates real friction for downstream projects. Establishing >> this practice in the companion project gives us a concrete, working >> reference that could motivate and inform a broader Cassandra core evolution >> down the road. Happy to discuss that separately if there is interest. >> >> Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. >> >> Thanks >> - Yifan >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 11:32 PM Štefan Miklošovič <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jeremiah, >>> >>> for now, what I find difficult and I found myself questioning this >>> repeatedly is "what version of Sidecar can I run with Analytics?" Is >>> Sidecar 0.2.0 compatible with Analytics 0.4.0? We just don't know >>> until we run it and try. There is no compatibility matrix for what >>> goes with what. If each component is developed independently then I >>> think it will be more messy than if it was released in lock-step. >>> >>> We might establish a policy that e.g. a patch release of Sidecar is >>> compatible with whatever minor in Analytics. For example, we release >>> both Sidecar and Analytics under unified version 1.0.0. Then we will >>> release 1.0.5 of both next. So we can say that Sidecar 1.0.5 is >>> compatible with Analytics 1.0.0. Or Sidecar 1.1.5 is compatible with >>> Analytics 1.1.0. Basically, Sidecar is a standalone server app a user >>> can run without Analytics but once they are interested in Analytics >>> combo, they would need to run with respective Analytics releases. >>> >>> If we release Analytics and Sidecar 1.1.0 and you have Sidecar 1.0.5 >>> then you would need to upgrade to 1.1.0 to be sure that it is >>> compatible with Analytics 100% while you could just bump patch >>> releases for Sidecar endlessly if you are interested in Sidecar >>> without Analytics. >>> >>> This would of course mean that there would need to be awareness in >>> "will this patch I want to ship to Sidecar work in related Analytics >>> minor version when we release it?". We might also say that a new REST >>> endpoint can go only into a new minor version and similar. >>> >>> This was, of course, just an example and it is all tweakable. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 11:44 PM Jeremiah Jordan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I worry if we move into the Sidecar repo it's just going to become more >>>>> coupled and folks in the community are already using Analytics to read >>>>> from e.g. S3 buckets or other data sources. >>>> >>>> >>>> I have similar concerns. If we start releasing them in lockstep from the >>>> same repo, then I worry that people will start making breaking changes to >>>> sidecar APIs such that existing Analytics jars out in the wild will not >>>> work, without realizing it. >>>> >>>> Both cassandra-analytics and the cassandra-sidecar are starting to be used >>>> out in the world by people in production settings. My expectation for >>>> updates to the sidecar APIs is that anything done should not break >>>> existing clients, when the client and the server are in different repos, >>>> it is much cleaner and clearer to people that you are exposing an API >>>> surface which is being consumed externally, and you need to keep things >>>> like backwards compatibility in mind. If the client and the server live >>>> in the same repo, and are released together, I can see people just >>>> changing/refactoring both and not considering existing clients out in the >>>> wild. I think them being in separate repos makes that distinction clearer >>>> to someone working on a new feature that spans both code bases. >>>> >>>> Seems like many here want them in the same repo, so I won’t block that, >>>> but I have concerns. >>>> >>>> If we do decide to merge them, I think it should be in a new repo with a >>>> new name. I do not think the sidecar belongs in a repo names analytics, >>>> or the analytics library belongs in a repo named sidecar. They both have >>>> use cases that do not involved the other. >>>> >>>> -Jeremiah Jordan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 3, 2026 at 11:42:15 AM, James Berragan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Can we break down a bit more where the circular dependency lies, I'm not >>>>> against it, I just want to make sure we're solving the right problem >>>>> here. Analytics and CDC were always designed to be agnostic of the >>>>> Sidecar. What stops us moving just the Sidecar specific parts into the >>>>> Sidecar repo? I worry if we move into the Sidecar repo it's just going to >>>>> become more coupled and folks in the community are already using >>>>> Analytics to read from e.g. S3 buckets or other data sources. >>>>> >>>>> James. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 at 13:20, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to propose we merge the cassandra-sidecar and >>>>>> cassandra-analytics repositories. I've shopped the idea around to some >>>>>> of you and gotten universally positive feedback with some questions >>>>>> about details we deferred to this discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reasons we should merge: >>>>>> >>>>>> Break circular dependencies between the 2 projects >>>>>> Remove redundant copy/pasted code >>>>>> Simplify build and CI >>>>>> Reduce friction on changes that span both projects >>>>>> Simplify the CDC implementation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Outstanding questions and observations that came up: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we merge one repository into the other? Or do we create a new project >>>>>> and bring them both in? >>>>>> What do we do about JIRA? Leave separate or combine? >>>>>> What do we do with open issues and PR's in github? >>>>>> We'll need to thoughtfully update CI (github + circle) since we're right >>>>>> at the limit on the free tier on both projects >>>>>> What do we do about existing deprecated repositories >>>>>> (cassandra-analytics and/or cassandra-sidecar)? >>>>>> We'll need to update our release process >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Other observations or questions welcome, as are thoughts on the entire >>>>>> process, on the outstanding questions, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking forward to the discussion everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> ~Josh
