Quick comment on libraries for different languages. The libraries for different languages should almost ALWAYS look different. They should look like what someone using that language expects an API to look like. If someone gave me a python API that used java's builder pattern instead of named keyword arguments I would have to shoot myself.
-Jeremiah ________________________________ From: Gregori Schmidt [mailto:grokd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:04 PM To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Ditching Cassandra On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: The client space as a whole *is* a mess, despite heroic efforts on the part of our third-party API maintainers, but forcing them in-tree is not going to solve anything. In fact, it would very likely make it worse by adding unnecessary overhead to contribution, and discouraging innovation. I can understand your reluctance to do the clients "in-tree" since it will be a lot of work and people will no doubt be upset if their client is not chosen for a given language. But I think this is the wrong approach for three reasons. First, the client libraries in different languages should look alike. Having libraries that look different in different languages is a very bad idea indeed.
