/> I'm quite happy to leave things as they are if that is the consensus./
+1 to the above
On 06/04/2023 14:54, Mike Adamson wrote:
My apologies. I started this discussion off the back of a usability
discussion around new user accessibility to Cassandra and the premise
that there is an initial steep learning curve for new users. Including
new users who have worked for a long time in the traditional DBMS field.
On the basis of the reason for the discussion, TABLEGROUP doesn't sit
well because of user types / functions / indexes etc. which are not
strictly tables and is also yet another Cassandra only term.
NAMESPACE could work but it's different usage in other systems could
be just as confusing to new users.
And, I certainly don't think having multiple names for the same thing
just to satisfy different parties is a good idea at all.
I'm quite happy to leave things as they are if that is the consensus.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 14:16, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
KEYSPACE is fine. If we want to introduce a standard nomenclature
like DATABASE that’s also fine. Inventing brand new ones is not
fine, there’s no benefit.
I'm with Benedict in principle, with Aleksey in practice; I think
KEYSPACE and SCHEMA are actually fine enough.
If and when we get to any kind of multi-tenancy, having a more
metaphorical abstraction that users are familiar with like these
becomes more valuable; it's pretty clear that things in different
keyspaces, different databases, or even different schemas could
have different access rules, resourcing, etc from one another.
While the off-the-cuff logical TABLEGROUP thing is a /literal/
statement about what the thing is, it'd be another unique term to
us; we have enough things in our system where we've charted our
own path. My personal .02 is we don't need to go adding more. :)
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, at 8:54 AM, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
… but that should be a different discussion about how we
evolve config.
I disagree. Nomenclature being difficult can benefit from
holistic and forward thinking.
Sure you can label this off-topic if you like, but I value our
discuss threads being collaborative in an open-mode.
Sometimes the best idea is on the tail end of a sequence of bad
and/or unpopular ideas.
--
DataStax Logo Square <https://www.datastax.com/> *Mike Adamson*
Engineering
+1 650 389 6000 <tel:16503896000>|datastax.com
<https://www.datastax.com/>
Find DataStax Online: LinkedIn Logo
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_datastax&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=uHzE4WhPViSF0rsjSxKhfwGDU1Bo7USObSc_aIcgelo&s=akx0E6l2bnTjOvA-YxtonbW0M4b6bNg4nRwmcHNDo4Q&e=>
Facebook Logo
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_datastax&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=uHzE4WhPViSF0rsjSxKhfwGDU1Bo7USObSc_aIcgelo&s=ncMlB41-6hHuqx-EhnM83-KVtjMegQ9c2l2zDzHAxiU&e=>
Twitter Logo <https://twitter.com/DataStax> RSS Feed
<https://www.datastax.com/blog/rss.xml> Github Logo
<https://github.com/datastax>
