I am satisfied with the addition of modularity as a requirement for this CEP. I change my vote to +1.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > My votes: > > 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason. The minor reason is that I believe > we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of > LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to > reflect this. The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the > simple CAS operations supported by Accord to full SQL support with > interactive transactions, or even to Calvin-style deterministic > transactions with richer semantics. > > 2. -1, I'm not convinced that we want a one-size-fits-all approach and if > we do that Accord is the best one size. > > 3. +1, although obviously the devil is in the details. I would support, > for instance, exposing any interfaces necessary in Cassandra to make it > feasible to maintain and use Accord as an out-of-tree plugin for the time > being. This lets work on Accord continue while not closing the door on > alternatives that make different tradeoffs. I would also support, in that > world, CQL extensions that only work with Accord or other “next-gen” > transaction managers to start evolving our APIs past what LWT can handle. > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Point of order: our project governance states >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Project+Governance> >> , >> >> "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent >> reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The >> criteria for acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding >> vetoes). The vote should remain open for 72 hours." >> >> No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to >> a simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional. >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three >>> sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time. >>> >>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? >>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for >>> Cassandra? >>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in >>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development? >>> >>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and >>> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority >>> votes of the PMC. >>> >>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you >>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. >>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will >>> halt for the time being. >>> >>> This vote will be open for 72 hours. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Ellis >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >> @spyced >> > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced > -- Jonathan Ellis co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
