On 28 July 2011 16:23, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote:
> To be honest, collecting the names that were missing in the first name > query and doing a new name query for those (if there is any) is so simple > that I think it is a bit dishonest to say that "it pushes work to the > clients". > > It seems simple enough at least that it does not sound like a good idea to > me to complicate the API. > > Fair point - I was forgetting that I need to implement basic retries anyway, if I'm using CL.ONE, so the partial retries won't be much more difficult, as you say. Though it does mean I need one kind of retry for get() and another kind for get_slice(). Still getting used to eventual consistency ;-) > I'll also argue that throwing an exception is always inferior to the > current > behavior, because if you re-query the missing names and get nothing > back again, you at least know what are the names that are not missing. > If you throw an exception and you simply get the exception twice, you > only know that "some" column(s) is(are) missing. > True - throwing an exception would be useful if you have large columns, need all of the columns to do anything useful, and would rather not download 90% of them only to throw them away for the lack of the last 10% (if some of the columns may actually be absent as opposed to not-yet-consistent), but I guess that's a pretty obscure edge case!! Thanks, David. > >
