I agree with Edward here. We use Thrift too and we haven't really found a good
enough reason to move to CQL3.
-- Drew
On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand why everyone wants to force this issue on removing
thrift. If cql, cql sparse tables and the new transport are better people
will naturally begin to use them, but as it stands now I see the it
this way:
Thrift still has more clients for more languages, thrift has more higher
level clients for more languages.
Thrift has Hadoop support hive support and pig support in the wild.
Thrift has third party tools like Orm tools, support for tools like flume.
Most of cql3 features like collections do not work with compact tables,
and compact tables are much more space efficient then their cql3 sparse
counterparts, composite rows with UTf column names, blank rows, etc.
Cql3 binary client is only available for in beta stage for a few languages.
So the project can easily remove thrift today but until a majority of the
tooling by the community adopts the transport and for the most part cqls
sparse tables it is not going to mean anything. Many people already have
code live in production working fine with the old toolset and will be
unwilling to convert something just because
Think about it like this a company like mine that already has something in
production. Even if you could convince me us that cql native transport was
better, which by the way no one has showed me a vast performance reason to
this point, they still may not want to invest the resources to convert
their app. Many companies endured the painful transition from Cassandra 0.6
to Cassandra 0.7 conversion and they are not eagerly going to entertain
another change which is mostly cosmetic.
Also I find issues like this extremely frustrating.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4924
It seems like the project is drawing a hard line in the sand dividing
people. Is it the case that cql3's sparse tables can't be accessed
by thrift, or is it the case that no one wants to make this happen? Like is
it technically impossible? It seems not to me in Cassandra
Row key, column, and value are all still byte arrays right? So I do not see
why thrift users need to be locked out of them. Just like composites we
will figure out how to pack the bytes.
I hope that we can stop talking about removing thrift until there is some
consensus between active users that it is not in use anymore.
This consensus is not as simple as n committers saying that something is
technically not needed anymore. It has to look at the users, the number of
clients, the number of languages, the number of high level tools available.
In the mean time when issues like 4924 pop up it would be better if people
tried to find solutions for maximum forward and backward compatibility
instead of drawing a line and trying to shut thrift users out of things.
Avro was much the same way . I had a spirited debate on irc and got
basicallly insulted because i belived thrift was not dead. The glory of
avro never came true because it really did not work for clients outside a
few languages. Cql and the binary transport has to pass this same litmus
test. Let it gain momentum and have rock solid clients for 5 languages and
have higher level tools written on top of it then its easy to say thrift is
not needed anymore.
On Saturday, December 1, 2012, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
I agree on 2.0.
For the thrift part, we've said clearly that we wouldn't remove it any time
soon so let's stick to that. Besides, I would agree it's too soon anyway.
What we can do however in the relatively short term on that front, is to
pull thrift in it's own jar (we've almost removed all internal dependencies
on thrift, and the few remaining ones will be easy to kill) and make that
jar optional if you don't want to use it.
--
Sylvain
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Ray Slakinski
ray.slakin...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
I agree, I don't think its a great idea to drop thrift until the back
end tools are 100% compatible and have some level of agreement from the
major users of
Cassandra.
Paying off technical dept though I'm all for, and I think its key to the
long term success of the application. Right now Supercolumns to someone
new coming to the system might think Hey, these things look great. Lets
use them and in a few months time hate all things that are cassandra.
Ray Slakinski
On 12/01, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
As attractive as it would be to clean house, I think we owe it to our
users to keep Thrift around for the forseeable future rather than
orphan all Thrift-using applications (which is virtually everyone) on
1.2.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jason Brown
jasedbr...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
I'm in favor of paying off the technical debt, as well, and I wonder
if
there is value in
