https://opensource.docs.scylladb.com/stable/using-scylla/drivers/cql-drivers/scylla-java-driver.html
Directly quoting Scylla docs here: > The Scylla Java Driver is a drop-in replacement for the DataStax Java Driver. As such, no code changes are needed to use this driver. On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:13 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matt, > > I don't think we need to really "abstract above" the drivers because the > Java DataStax driver appears to support 4.X all the way back to 2.X, as > well as the enterprise versions from DataStax > > https://docs.datastax.com/en/driver-matrix/docs/java-drivers.html > > Similar situation with Scylla. When I looked at the driver, it appeared to > copy verbatim the entire public API of that driver. So I think before we > dive into abstractions, it's worth doing a bit more validation of these > details. IMHO, this might be a much lighter lift than anticipated. > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:30 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Totally agree, that's what my branch does (see link in previous email). >> The >> more I work with it, the more I think I can abstract it further from their >> JDBC-like API but I started with a bunch of delegate classes then I figure >> I'll see where I can consolidate to more abstract concepts. If I don't >> have >> to support Cassandra 3 with the new API, so much the better. >> >> Regards, >> Matt >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 4:14 PM David Handermann < >> exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Matt et al, >> > >> > It is good to see the background effort on moving Cassandra >> > capabilities in a supportable direction. >> > >> > I think new Cassandra components will require a significant departure >> > from current Controller Service abstractions. Right now, the existing >> > service interface does not provide a clean abstraction from the >> > Cassandra library, which is part of the reason for the current >> > coupling to the legacy driver version. >> > >> > Following up from Joe's comments, it seems like the cleanest way >> > forward is to deprecate the current bundle on the 1.x branch, and >> > remove the current bundle from the main branch. That will provide a >> > clean slate for new Service and Processor implementations, without >> > concern for uncertain compatibility questions. >> > >> > Regards, >> > David Handermann >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 2:35 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > What do y'all think about removing the individual connection >> properties >> > > from the Cassandra processors for NiFi 2.0 and requiring a >> > > CassandraSessionProvider instead? I think we started doing that >> elsewhere >> > > (Elasticsearch maybe?), I noticed duplicate code in the >> > > CassandraSessionProvider and AbstractCassandraProcessor, if we keep >> those >> > > properties I can refactor them into a utility class. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Matt >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:44 PM Steven Matison < >> steven.mati...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I got through quite a bit of work to enable 4.x… >> > > > >> > > > The 3.x pieces that were not backwards compatible is very edge use >> > case and >> > > > could have been done slightly differently but with work around. >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/steven-matison/nifi/tree/nifi-10120-1 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:30 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Oops used the wrong email address so if there have been responses >> to >> > the >> > > > > Cassandra thread since mine I missed them, my bad! >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > I believe the CQL protocol is backwards compatible but the Java >> > API is >> > > > > > not. For example "com.datastax.driver.core.Session" is now >> > > > > > "com.datastax.oss.driver.api.core.session.Session" and there is >> no >> > more >> > > > > > "Cluster" class. Might be fairly trivial to fix though, if >> that's >> > the >> > > > > path >> > > > > > of least resistance. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:40 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Matt >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I dont know a ton about Cassandra but when I looked at >> > client/driver >> > > > > notes >> > > > > >> for 4+ it said it was compatible all the way back to 3.x. Not >> > sure >> > > > > what >> > > > > >> that means but it surely seems worth exploring. Also I dont >> know >> > if >> > > > the >> > > > > >> 4.x drivers get rid of the vulnerable bits. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Thanks >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:39 AM Matt Burgess < >> > mattyb...@apache.org> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > At the very least we should upgrade to Cassandra 3.11.6: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-3.11.16/CHANGES.txt >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:31 PM Matt Burgess < >> > mattyb...@apache.org> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > If the community agrees to get rid of Cassandra 3 that'll >> > save me >> > > > > >> effort >> > > > > >> > > on the refactor after I add Cassandra 4 :) Otherwise those >> > > > > >> > > vulnerabilities would only be in a "new" Cassandra 3 >> services >> > NAR >> > > > > that >> > > > > >> > > would not be included in the convenience binary. >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:28 PM Joe Witt < >> joe.w...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Mike, Matt, >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> Happy to hear you both have active efforts or are >> interested >> > in >> > > > > doing >> > > > > >> > so. >> > > > > >> > >> Can you help me understand more specifically what that >> means >> > for >> > > > > the >> > > > > >> > >> current set of components? >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> The CVE hits are concerning and long standing. Supporting >> > > > > Cassandra >> > > > > >> 3 >> > > > > >> > >> implies the current set of dependencies would remain too >> > right? >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> Is the current set of components we have ones we want to >> > retain? >> > > > > We >> > > > > >> > >> certainly need Cassandra components - but are the ones we >> > have >> > > > now >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >> > >> right ones? >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> Thanks >> > > > > >> > >> Joe >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25 AM Matt Burgess < >> > > > > mattyb...@apache.org> >> > > > > >> > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> > I'm actively working this, I pushed my branch up in case >> > anyone >> > > > > >> wants >> > > > > >> > to >> > > > > >> > >> > take a look [1]. The idea is to abstract the Cassandra >> API >> > "up >> > > > a >> > > > > >> > couple >> > > > > >> > >> > levels" and provide implementations for Cassandra 3, 4, >> and >> > > > > >> eventually >> > > > > >> > >> 5. >> > > > > >> > >> > For JDBC-like interfaces this is a PITA because of the >> API >> > > > > >> (Statement, >> > > > > >> > >> > PreparedStatement, BoundStatement, ResultSet, etc.) but >> I'm >> > > > > hoping >> > > > > >> we >> > > > > >> > >> can >> > > > > >> > >> > find a common pattern for abstracting the third-party >> > library >> > > > > >> > >> > implementation and API from the NiFi component >> (Processor, >> > > > > >> > >> > ControllerService, etc.) API. I think we're doing >> something >> > > > > similar >> > > > > >> > for >> > > > > >> > >> > Kafka? >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Regards, >> > > > > >> > >> > Matt >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/mattyb149/nifi/tree/cassy4 >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:43 AM Mike Thomsen < >> > > > > >> mikerthom...@gmail.com> >> > > > > >> > >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > That’s been on my todo list for a little while but >> things >> > > > kept >> > > > > >> > coming >> > > > > >> > >> up. >> > > > > >> > >> > > I think I could get started on that now. Based on my >> > initial >> > > > > >> > research >> > > > > >> > >> it >> > > > > >> > >> > > appears that scylla uses the exact same api as >> datastax >> > so >> > > > > >> > supporting >> > > > > >> > >> > both >> > > > > >> > >> > > in a cql bundle should theoretically be fairly easy. >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Mar 14, 2024, at 6:18 PM, Joe Witt < >> > joew...@apache.org> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Team, >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Cassandra remains a really important system to be >> able >> > to >> > > > > send >> > > > > >> > data >> > > > > >> > >> to. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > However, it seems like we've not maintained these >> > well. We >> > > > > >> have >> > > > > >> > >> what >> > > > > >> > >> > > > appears to be at least a full generation behind on >> > client >> > > > > >> versions >> > > > > >> > >> (we >> > > > > >> > >> > > are >> > > > > >> > >> > > > on 3x vs 4x which is the latest stable with 5x >> > apparently >> > > > > >> coming >> > > > > >> > >> > > shortly). >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > We have components to send data, query data, and use >> > > > > Cassandra >> > > > > >> as >> > > > > >> > a >> > > > > >> > >> > cache >> > > > > >> > >> > > > store. We have older mechanisms for json/avro and >> > publish >> > > > > >> > >> mechanisms >> > > > > >> > >> > for >> > > > > >> > >> > > > records. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > The libraries we do have depend on outdated >> versions of >> > > > Guava >> > > > > >> and >> > > > > >> > >> > result >> > > > > >> > >> > > in >> > > > > >> > >> > > > many CVE hits. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I am inclined to think we should deprecate the 1.x >> > > > components >> > > > > >> and >> > > > > >> > >> > remove >> > > > > >> > >> > > > them as-is from the 2.x line. Then re-introduce >> them >> > with >> > > > > >> record >> > > > > >> > >> only >> > > > > >> > >> > > > interfaces and built against the latest stable >> > > > > >> > >> > > Cassandra/Datastax/ScyllaDB >> > > > > >> > >> > > > interfaces. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I'd love to hear thoughts from those closer to this >> > space >> > > > > both >> > > > > >> as >> > > > > >> > a >> > > > > >> > >> > user >> > > > > >> > >> > > > and developer so we can make good next steps. >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> >
