Yeah, also I lean strongly towards using the Java driver. Dogfooding the Java driver has real benefits. I don't see any benefit to maintaining the SimpleClient.
Jon On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:25 PM Tolbert, Andy <x...@andrewtolbert.com> wrote: > Thanks Abe! I had a bit of a blind spot in checking for prior tickets. > It was good to look at the discussion on CASSANDRA-15750 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15750>. > > > Out of curiosity - why do you prefer tests move towards 4.x driver vs. > in-tree SimpleClient > > Great call out, I think we should definitely evaluate whether SimpleClient > could be used in place of a full driver implementation. If its not too > difficult to implement functionality the driver provides that we need for > tests, it may be worth it. > > On the other hand, now that the driver is now an Apache project and that > it would no longer be a core server dependency makes it more justifiable to > use if its just for test and tools. > > In any case, it's something we should look at before we get to the point > of porting test code to the 4.x driver. > > Andy > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 2:06 PM Abe Ratnofsky <a...@aber.io> wrote: > >> Thanks for opening this discussion Andy. I'm also supportive of the plan >> you've proposed. >> >> Pushback from past discussion was mostly due to the 4.0 stabilization >> effort. Since then, cassandra-java-driver has been donated to ASF and >> driver 4.x has had a number of releases, so it feels like the right time to >> update. >> >> CASSANDRA-15750 >> CASSANDRA-17231 >> >> As far as I know, it's safe for the two drivers to co-exist on the same >> classpath as well. >> >> Out of curiosity - why do you prefer tests move towards 4.x driver vs. >> in-tree SimpleClient? We're already using SimpleClient in tests, and it's >> in-tree so we don't need to be concerned with API compatibility or leakage. >> We'd probably have to add some convenience APIs, like binding to prepared >> statements, to make the transition easier. >> >
