This would be my preference.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:22 PM Ben Bromhead wrote:
> I'm also comfortable with a strict approach where we just list actual
> Apache Cassandra offerings, that also provides good solid clarity to users.
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:06 AM bened...@apache.org
>
I'm also comfortable with a strict approach where we just list actual
Apache Cassandra offerings, that also provides good solid clarity to users.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:06 AM bened...@apache.org
wrote:
> +1
>
> From: Brandon Williams
> Date: Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 15:44
> To:
+1
From: Brandon Williams
Date: Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 15:44
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> The obvious core responsibility of the website should be to ASLv2
> permissively licensed
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 9:38 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> The obvious core responsibility of the website should be to ASLv2
> permissively licensed Apache Cassandra and secondarily to CQL as a protocol
> IMO. I don't think we as a project should be tracking derivative works,
> forks, or other
>
> With it we could simply organize the offers by level of CQL compatibility.
I would suggest another category along the lines of "Cassandra Protocol
> compatible offerings"
The obvious core responsibility of the website should be to ASLv2
permissively licensed Apache Cassandra and secondarily
Brian Houser proposed to build a tool for the next release to validate the
level of CQL compatibility. With it we could simply organize the offers by
level of CQL compatibility.
Le mer. 23 juin 2021 à 10:24, bened...@apache.org
a écrit :
> If we are going to include copycats, let’s (in all
If we are going to include copycats, let’s (in all seriousness) at least be fun
about it and put them under the heading “Copycats”
We should also include a disclaimer that they may not be feature compatible.
Since due diligence on this is hard even for subject matter experts, it would
be nicer
