This is not the first or last of these discussions: Need for standards/good clients to access Databases has happened before one in the early 90s.. leading to emergence of an sql-92 standard. Fast forward to today: No database/data management software out there distributes the server software without the necessary client drivers/software to access/insert data. Whether in the form of default clients, type-4 drivers etc. One could argue that a data store is incomplete without having robust client libraries to manipulate data in there.
Notice that the end user still keeps (& has kept in other instances) the option to install his chosen client if it performs better or works well/supports his particular usecase well. It does not necessarily limit choice but ups the quality barrier for distributing/creating new clients (as opposed to contributing the existing one.) Having a default one makes integration into larger stacks dead simple. What we have today is power users writing their own robust features (for ex, Thread/Connection Pooling, proper exception handling) that are not necessarily available in all the clients & fragmented development leading to poor overall experience. (Not to say the underlying coupling with Thrift: Client software could inadvertently upgrade/modify thrift libraries leading to a bit of chaos) While this is fine for experimental stages it is not a sign of matured stacks. Not having a good client will limit the power of Apache Cassandra and in the end drive users towards non-free client software. +1 For having a default client library maintained and distributed with server. For I believe this would make for faster wider adoption of Apache Cassandra and bring it to a lot of new users and workloads with the goodness that comes with being under ASF. thanks, Sri On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 13:46 -0600, Tyler Hobbs wrote: > > Personally, I like the Mongo drivers page: > > http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Drivers > > > > I like the clear distinction between preferred and alternative clients > > without a lot of clutter about release dates and supported versions. > > How do we make that distinction, though? A "supported by Riptano" > > section is one option, but that doesn't even encompass all of the > > preferred clients. > > This sounds like you're suggesting that we place an "official according > to Riptano" section on the project wiki. That sounds... worse. > > -- > Eric Evans > eev...@rackspace.com > >
