[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6147?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13924089#comment-13924089
]
Tyler Hobbs commented on CASSANDRA-6147:
----------------------------------------
bq. Because remove requires a timestamp and deletion does not. We can not
remove that. What we can do is set it to optional, throw an exception server
side and them maybe later (1 year) truly allow it to be optional and not throw
the exception.
I must be missing something, but why can't you make the remove() timestamp
optional now and generate server-side timestamps for both Deletion and remove()
when a timestamp isn't set?
> Allow Thrift opt-in to server-side timestamps
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6147
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6147
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: API
> Reporter: Edward Capriolo
> Assignee: Edward Capriolo
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.1 beta2
>
>
> Thrift users are still forced to generate timestamps on the client side.
> Currently the way the thrift bindings are generated users are forced to
> supply timestamps. There are two solutions I see.
> * -1 as timestamp means "generate on the server side"
> This is a breaking change, for those using -1 as a timestamp (which should
> effectively be no one.
> * Prepare yourself....
> Our thrift signatures are wrong, you can't overload methods in thrift
> thrift.get(byte [], byte[], ts)
> should REALLY be changed to
> GetRequest g = new GetRequest()
> g.setName()
> g.setValue()
> g.setTs() ///optional
> thrift. get( g )
> I know no one is going to want to make this change because thrift is
> quasi/dead but it would allow us to evolve thrift in a meaningful way. We
> could simple add these new methods under different names as well.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
