You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com> on 2012/12/03 18:34:20 UTC
[VOTE CLOSED] Release Apache Cassandra 1.2.0-rc1
Alright, seems we can use a beta 3 before calling this a RC1.
So I'm closing this vote and I'll rebrand this as beta3 and do a short 24h
with that. And hopefully we'll have a true RC1 quickly after that.
Stay tuned.
--
Sylvain
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not a fan of blocking a new rc because of bugs that are not
> > regressions new in that release. I'd also like to get more testing on
> > the 1.2 fixes since b2. But we can call it b3 instead of rc1 if you
> > want.
>
> I agree with everything you've said. I'm fine with calling it b3,
> though I expect we'll have that ticket closed soon and could re-roll
> an rc1 on Tuesday.
>
> -Brandon
>
Re: [VOTE CLOSED] Release Apache Cassandra 1.2.0-rc1
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
I doubt we'll be making enough Thrift changes in the future for it to matter.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With thrift methods can not be over-loaded but objects can have optional
> parameters.
>
> In the future should we avoid:
>
> CqlResult execute_cql3_query(1:required binary query, 2:required
> Compression compression, 3:required ConsistencyLevel consistency)
> throws (1:InvalidRequestException ire,
> 2:UnavailableException ue,
> 3:TimedOutException te,
> 4:SchemaDisagreementException sde)
>
> Instead
>
> CqlResult execute_cql3_query(1:required CqlRequestObject object)
>
> and the CqlRequestObject can contain all optional parameters. I can not
> find the exact reference, but I remember reading this is the way google has
> suggested using protobufs, mark all fields optional always for maximum
> compatibility.
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Question. 1.2.0-beta2
>> >
>> > Why does the thrift interface have 2 CQL methods?
>>
>> To preserve cql2 compatibility. cql3 pulls consistencylevel into the
>> method call instead of the query language.
>>
>> > Is this something we are going to continue?
>>
>> When necessary for compatibility, yes.
>>
>> > I wish we could have done the cassandra 0.6.X -> 0.7.X
>> > migration this way:)
>>
>> In retrospect, I agree.
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>> @spyced
>>
--
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced
Re: [VOTE CLOSED] Release Apache Cassandra 1.2.0-rc1
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
With thrift methods can not be over-loaded but objects can have optional
parameters.
In the future should we avoid:
CqlResult execute_cql3_query(1:required binary query, 2:required
Compression compression, 3:required ConsistencyLevel consistency)
throws (1:InvalidRequestException ire,
2:UnavailableException ue,
3:TimedOutException te,
4:SchemaDisagreementException sde)
Instead
CqlResult execute_cql3_query(1:required CqlRequestObject object)
and the CqlRequestObject can contain all optional parameters. I can not
find the exact reference, but I remember reading this is the way google has
suggested using protobufs, mark all fields optional always for maximum
compatibility.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Question. 1.2.0-beta2
> >
> > Why does the thrift interface have 2 CQL methods?
>
> To preserve cql2 compatibility. cql3 pulls consistencylevel into the
> method call instead of the query language.
>
> > Is this something we are going to continue?
>
> When necessary for compatibility, yes.
>
> > I wish we could have done the cassandra 0.6.X -> 0.7.X
> > migration this way:)
>
> In retrospect, I agree.
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>
Re: [VOTE CLOSED] Release Apache Cassandra 1.2.0-rc1
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Question. 1.2.0-beta2
>
> Why does the thrift interface have 2 CQL methods?
To preserve cql2 compatibility. cql3 pulls consistencylevel into the
method call instead of the query language.
> Is this something we are going to continue?
When necessary for compatibility, yes.
> I wish we could have done the cassandra 0.6.X -> 0.7.X
> migration this way:)
In retrospect, I agree.
--
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced
Re: [VOTE CLOSED] Release Apache Cassandra 1.2.0-rc1
Posted by Edward Capriolo <ed...@gmail.com>.
Question. 1.2.0-beta2
Why does the thrift interface have 2 CQL methods?
CqlResult execute_cql_query(1:required binary query, 2:required
Compression compression)
throws (1:InvalidRequestException ire,
2:UnavailableException ue,
3:TimedOutException te,
4:SchemaDisagreementException sde)
CqlResult execute_cql3_query(1:required binary query, 2:required
Compression compression, 3:required ConsistencyLevel consistency)
throws (1:InvalidRequestException ire,
2:UnavailableException ue,
3:TimedOutException te,
4:SchemaDisagreementException sde)
Is this something we are going to continue? Just naming methods
execute_cql3_query? I wish we could have done the cassandra 0.6.X -> 0.7.X
migration this way:)
get(String keyspace, String column family, String rowkey, String column)
get7(String columnFamily, binay rowkey, binary column )
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>wrote:
> Alright, seems we can use a beta 3 before calling this a RC1.
> So I'm closing this vote and I'll rebrand this as beta3 and do a short 24h
> with that. And hopefully we'll have a true RC1 quickly after that.
>
> Stay tuned.
>
> --
> Sylvain
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Brandon Williams <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I'm not a fan of blocking a new rc because of bugs that are not
> > > regressions new in that release. I'd also like to get more testing on
> > > the 1.2 fixes since b2. But we can call it b3 instead of rc1 if you
> > > want.
> >
> > I agree with everything you've said. I'm fine with calling it b3,
> > though I expect we'll have that ticket closed soon and could re-roll
> > an rc1 on Tuesday.
> >
> > -Brandon
> >
>