My concern when I see something like this is it might cause developers on the project to get worried and start to try to solve the wrong problems. Cassandra is not going to be as easy as Mongo, certainly not any time soon. CQL won't do it, although it will help. This isn't a criticism of Cassandra or CQL though. Cassandra isn't here to compete with Mongo on ease of use, it's here to compete on scalability. Secondly, the client libraries are not a mess. Some might be, some are not - Hector, which is the one I contribute to, is pretty good. Client libraries aren't going away. People are still building "client libraries" on top of SQL four decades later, we just call them ORM or middleware. Cassandra's data model is by necessity somewhat complicated, and most of the client libraries are going to have to be more than wrappers around Thrift or easy ways to send CQL. There's where Hector is going, it has a lightweight JPA implementation and it's going to have a very robust implementation soon. Honestly, the only criticism by the OP that should be taken to heart is stability. Cassandra can be the hardest database in the world to use and still succeed, but it has to be rock solid at all levels of scale, and that has to be the focus in the near term.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Gregori Schmidt <grokd...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi, > After using Cassandra during development for the past 8 months my team and I > made the decision to switch from Cassandra to MongoDB this morning. I > thought I'd share some thoughts on why we did this and where Cassandra might > benefit from improvement.
