If there is someone with the time and resources to fork and keep thrift up to date, they could assumedly just push thrift updates back into master. i.e. If the goal is to reduce maintenance overhead for the core secs that's fine, but the it doesn't need to be frozen right? Perhaps it must be marked frozen for anyone with time and resources to continue enhancements to step out of the woodworks? If no one does, it stays frozen.
______________________________ Sent from iPhone > On 12 Mar 2014, at 8:04 am, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With support officially deprecated that will be the only way to go. If a > user wants to add a function to thrift they will have to fork off > cassandra, code the function themselves write the internals, manage the > internals. I see this as being a very hard task because the server could > change rapidly with no regards to them. Also this could cause a > proliferation of functions. Could you imagine a thrift server with 300 > methods :). This is why I think keeping the support in trunk and carefully > adding things would be sane, but seemingly no one wants to support it at > all so a fork is probably in order. > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Russ Bradberry <rbradbe...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I would like to suggest the possibility of having the interface somewhat >> pluggable so another project can provide the Thrift interface as a drop in >> JAR. Thoughts? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> If you are using thrift there probably isn't a reason to upgrade to 2.1 >>> >>> What? Upgrading gets you performance regardless of your api. >>> >>> We have already gone from "no new feature" talk to "less enphisis on >>> testing". >>> >>> How comforting. >>>> On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Dave Brosius <dbros...@mebigfatguy.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1, >>>> >>>> altho supporting thrift in 2.1 seems overly conservative. >>>> >>>> If you are using thrift there probably isn't a reason to upgrade to 2.1, >>> in fact doing so will become an increasingly dumb idea as lesser and >> lesser >>> emphasis will be placed on testing with 2.1+. This would allow us to >>> greatly simplify the code footprint in 2.1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 03/11/2014 01:00 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> CQL3 is almost two years old now and has proved to be the better API >>>>> that Cassandra needed. CQL drivers have caught up with and passed the >>>>> Thrift ones in terms of features, performance, and usability. CQL is >>>>> easier to learn and more productive than Thrift. >>>>> >>>>> With static columns and LWT batch support [1] landing in 2.0.6, and >>>>> UDT in 2.1 [2], I don't know of any use cases for Thrift that can't be >>>>> done in CQL. Contrawise, CQL makes many things easy that are >>>>> difficult to impossible in Thrift. New development is overwhelmingly >>>>> done using CQL. >>>>> >>>>> To date we have had an unofficial and poorly defined policy of "add >>>>> support for new features to Thrift when that is 'easy.'" However, >>>>> even relatively simple Thrift changes can create subtle complications >>>>> for the rest of the server; for instance, allowing Thrift range >>>>> tombtones would make filter conversion for CASSANDRA-6506 more >>>>> difficult. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, I think it's time to officially close the book on Thrift. We >>>>> will retain it for backwards compatibility, but we will commit to >>>>> adding no new features or changes to the Thrift API after 2.1.0. This >>>>> will help send an unambiguous message to users and eliminate any >>>>> remaining confusion from supporting two APIs. If any new use cases >>>>> come to light that can be done with Thrift but not CQL, we will commit >>>>> to supporting those in CQL. >>>>> >>>>> (To a large degree, this merely formalizes what is already de facto >>>>> reality. Most thrift clients have not even added support for >>>>> atomic_batch_mutate and cas from 2.0, and popular clients like >>>>> Astyanax are migrating to the native protocol.) >>>>> >>>>> Reasonable? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6561 >>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5590 >>> >>> -- >>> Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check >> than >>> usual. >>
