Gregori, Congrats on writing the fud-liest post of the month award. Firstly if you don't like updates give up on computers and software. Especally give up on anything that has to do with nosql because it is fast evolving.
If you think you have a problem with the cassandra api, then what you really have a problem with the data model. You should have done more research nine months ago. I can not understand from rant exactly what you think is better about the mongo api. I see the complaint "lots of code" I suggest "books on design patterns". It is hardly the fault of cassandra that it works with so many languages and people create higher level clients and abstractions for it. I believe it is a testament to cassandra that many places that are historically non java shops can pick up ruby or php clients and dive in. Also I do not see exactly what is so hard about the api thrift generates. To me it looks like the memcache api except the value is a map. I do not see what needs to be wrapped around it to make it easier... Maybe a factory method to one liner things? On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Ashlee Saunders <ashlee.saund...@aswebco.com.au> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Grgori, > We in Australia are only concerned with solutions as we are a solutions > focused organization. With respect to your feedback, you and your team seem > to have identified no solutions other than jumping ship. When we subscribed > to the 50 or so emails per day, we wanted to contribute solutions to the > Cassandra community rather than dwell on problems. > > I have enjoyed following the team on this project, and they have been very > solutions focused. Please refrain from contributing negatively. Find > solutions to the Cassandra project. > > To the rest, please keep up the great work. > > Ashlee Saunders > > On 31/03/2011, at 7:19 AM, Ed Anuff <e...@anuff.com> wrote: > >> 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. >
