Thanks Maxim - I'll just go ahead and BCC you and Hentschel and move the discussion to the dev list.
Based on the comments on 1311 - did you have anything else to add to that - could we unify around 1016 or 1311 and work on getting that to a general state of acceptance? Were there any that were able to do some work on either these days? Or are we not at that point? On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Maxim Grinev wrote: > Hi all, > > Jeremy, thanks for starting the discussion! We don't follow the dev list > closely so it was a good idea to email it directly. > > It really seems to be about the same. To unify the discussions, we propose to > list the features of each solution and compare them feature by feature. Here > is the feature list for triggers: > • Triggers are set on a column family. Triggers are executed for each > mutation to the column family and parametrized by the mutation. > • The mutation, which is the trigger parameter, is the "new" value. The > trigger cannot see the "old" value. > • Triggers are executed asynchronously some time after the write which > fired it is acknowledged to the client. > • Triggers are executed once during normal execution. We guarantee "at > least once" execution in case of node failures. > Cheers, > Maxim > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jeremy Hanna > <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > I was just wondering if it would be a good time to unify discussions on > > plugins/triggers/coprocessors? > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1016 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1311 > > > > I was going to email the dev list but since I don't know if all of you > > follow the dev list and you guys are the ones that expressed the most > > interest, I thought I would start here. > > Yeah, they're all tackling basically the same problem. For which we > should have a single solution. > > -ryan >
