Guo: From your name change suggestion, I think I’d be -1 on that. In my head, LOOSE_NOT_NULL would imply that there is another NOT_NULL which happens to be NOT_NULL. Not the case now after this thread discussion. There are a lot of differences between MYSQL and Cassandra, and this constraint behavior being one of them I think is also a valid assumption. I don’t think there’s the need of being verbose on the naming for the constraint.
Bernardo > On Feb 11, 2025, at 12:42 AM, guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it may be better to use LOOSE_NOT_NULL instead of NOT_NULL. > The reason is: NOT_NULL can easily make users think that it is a related > function of MYSQL, but in fact we are different. > Changing a different name may avoid users' preconceived feelings. > > Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org <mailto:djo...@apache.org>> 于2025年2月11日周二 > 01:55写道： >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 9:05 AM Bernardo Botella >> <conta...@bernardobotella.com <mailto:conta...@bernardobotella.com>> wrote: >>> We have consensus then. Let’s ditch the non strict version, and rename the >>> STRICTLY_NOT_NULL to NOT_NULL. >> >> Can you give this thread at least 24-48 hours to ensure we capture any other >> perspectives?
