And I think this patch would still be useful and legitimate if the TTL of the initial increment is taken into account.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Utku Can Topçu <u...@topcu.gen.tr> wrote: > Yes, I've read the discussion. My use-case is similar to the use-case of > the contributor. > > So that's the reason why I've asked if it works or not. (with the flaw of > course). > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you read the discussion on that ticket, the point is that the >> approach is fundamentally flawed. >> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Utku Can Topçu <u...@topcu.gen.tr> >> wrote: >> > Can anyone confirm that this patch works with the current trunk? >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2103 >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Utku Can Topçu <u...@topcu.gen.tr> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi All, >> >>> >> >>> I'm experimenting and developing using counters. However, I've come to >> a >> >>> usecase where I need counters to expire and get deleted after a >> certain time >> >>> of inactivity (i.e. have countercolumn deleted one hour after the last >> >>> increment). >> >>> >> >>> As far as I can tell counter columns don't have TTL in the thrift >> >>> interface, is it because of a limitation of the counter >> implementation? >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Utku >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Ellis >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >> co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support >> http://riptano.com >> > >
