I agree with Edward here. We use Thrift too and we haven't really found a good
enough reason to move to CQL3.
-- Drew
On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
> I do not understand why everyone wants to force this issue on removing
> thrift. If cql, cql sparse tables and the new transport are better people
> will naturally begin to use them, but as it stands now I see the it
> this way:
>
> Thrift still has more clients for more languages, thrift has more higher
> level clients for more languages.
> Thrift has Hadoop support hive support and pig support in the wild.
> Thrift has third party tools like Orm tools, support for tools like flume.
>
> Most of cql3 features like collections do not work with compact tables,
> and compact tables are much more space efficient then their cql3 sparse
> counterparts, composite rows with UTf column names, blank rows, etc.
> Cql3 binary client is only available for in beta stage for a few languages.
>
> So the project can easily remove thrift today but until a majority of the
> tooling by the community adopts the transport and for the most part cqls
> sparse tables it is not going to mean anything. Many people already have
> code live in production working fine with the old toolset and will be
> unwilling to convert something just because
>
> Think about it like this a company like mine that already has something in
> production. Even if you could convince me us that cql native transport was
> better, which by the way no one has showed me a vast performance reason to
> this point, they still may not want to invest the resources to convert
> their app. Many companies endured the painful transition from Cassandra 0.6
> to Cassandra 0.7 conversion and they are not eagerly going to entertain
> another change which is mostly cosmetic.
>
> Also I find issues like this extremely frustrating.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4924
>
> It seems like the project is drawing a hard line in the sand dividing
> people. Is it the case that cql3's sparse tables can't be accessed
> by thrift, or is it the case that no one wants to make this happen? Like is
> it technically impossible? It seems not to me in Cassandra
> Row key, column, and value are all still byte arrays right? So I do not see
> why thrift users need to be locked out of them. Just like composites we
> will figure out how to pack the bytes.
>
> I hope that we can stop talking about removing thrift until there is some
> consensus between active users that it is not in use anymore.
> This consensus is not as simple as n committers saying that something is
> technically not needed anymore. It has to look at the users, the number of
> clients, the number of languages, the number of high level tools available.
> In the mean time when issues like 4924 pop up it would be better if people
> tried to find solutions for maximum forward and backward compatibility
> instead of drawing a line and trying to shut thrift users out of things.
>
> Avro was much the same way . I had a spirited debate on irc and got
> basicallly insulted because i belived thrift was not dead. The glory of
> avro never came true because it really did not work for clients outside a
> few languages. Cql and the binary transport has to pass this same litmus
> test. Let it gain momentum and have rock solid clients for 5 languages and
> have higher level tools written on top of it then its easy to say thrift is
> not needed anymore.
>
>
> On Saturday, December 1, 2012, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>
>> I agree on 2.0.
>>
>> For the thrift part, we've said clearly that we wouldn't remove it any time
>> soon so let's stick to that. Besides, I would agree it's too soon anyway.
>> What we can do however in the relatively short term on that front, is to
>> pull thrift in it's own jar (we've almost removed all internal dependencies
>> on thrift, and the few remaining ones will be easy to kill) and make that
>> jar optional if you don't want to use it.
>>
>> --
>> Sylvain
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Ray Slakinski
>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, I don't think its a great idea to drop thrift until the back
>>> end tools are 100% compatible and have some level of agreement from the
>>> major users of
>>> Cassandra.
>>>
>>> Paying off technical dept though I'm all for, and I think its key to the
>>> long term success of the application. Right now Supercolumns to someone
>>> new coming to the system might think "Hey, these things look great. Lets
>>> use them" and in a few months time hate all things that are cassandra.
>>>
>>> Ray Slakinski
>>>
>>> On 12/01, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
As attractive as it would be to clean house, I think we owe it to our
users to keep Thrift around for the forseeable future rather than
orphan all Thrift-using applications (which is virtually everyone) on
1.2.
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Jason Brown
>>>
>>> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>
