@Mat Well I guess you could add your Ruby client to this list since there is not a lot of them yet.
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ClientOptions Alain 2012/11/20 Mat Brown <m...@brewster.com> > As the author of Cequel, I can assure you it is excellent ; ) > > We use it in production at Brewster and it is quite stable. If you try > it out and find any bugs, we'll fix 'em quickly. > > I'm planning a big overhaul of the model layer over the holidays to > expose all the > new data modeling goodness in CQL3 (while still retaining > compatibility with CQL2 structures). > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Harry Wilkinson <hwilkin...@mdsol.com> > wrote: > > Update on this: someone just pointed me towards the Cequel gem: > > https://github.com/brewster/cequel > > > > The way it's described in the readme it looks like exactly what I was > > looking for - a modern, CQL-based gem that is in active development and > also > > follows the ActiveModel pattern. I'd be very interested to hear if > anybody > > has used this, whether it's stable/reliable, etc. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Harry > > > > On 2 August 2012 00:31, Thorsten von Eicken <t...@rightscale.com> wrote: > >> > >> Harry, we're in a similar situation and are starting to work out our own > >> ruby client. The biggest issue is that it doesn't make much sense to > build a > >> higher level abstraction on anything other than CQL3, given where > things are > >> headed. At least this is our opinion. > >> At the same time, CQL3 is just barely becoming usable and still seems > >> rather deficient in wide-row usage. The tricky part is that with the > current > >> CQL3 you have to construct quite complex iterators to retrieve a large > >> result set. Which means that you end up having to either parse CQL3 > coming > >> in to insert the iteration stuff, or you have to pass CQL3 fragments in > and > >> compose them together with iterator clauses. Not fun stuff either way. > >> The only good solution I see is to switch to a streaming protocol (or > >> build some form of "continue" on top of thrift) such that the client > can ask > >> for a huge result set and the cassandra coordinator can break it into > >> sub-queries as it sees fit and return results chunk-by-chunk. If this is > >> really the path forward then all abstractions built above CQL3 before > that > >> will either have a good piece of complex code that can be deleted or > worse, > >> will have an interface that is no longer best practice. > >> Good luck! > >> Thorsten > >> > >> > >> > >> On 8/1/2012 1:47 PM, Harry Wilkinson wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm looking for a Ruby client for Cassandra that is pretty high-level. > I > >> am really hoping to find a Ruby gem of high quality that allows a > developer > >> to create models like you would with ActiveModel. > >> > >> So far I have figured out that the canonical Ruby client for Cassandra > is > >> Twitter's Cassandra gem of the same name. It looks great - mature, > still in > >> active development, etc. No stated support for Ruby 1.9.3 that I can > see, > >> but I can probably live with that for now. > >> > >> What I'm looking for is a higher-level gem built on that gem that works > >> like ActiveModel in that you just include a module in your model class > and > >> that gives you methods to declare your model's serialized attributes and > >> also the usual ActiveModel methods like 'save!', 'valid?', 'find', etc. > >> > >> I've been trying out some different NoSQL databases recently, and for > >> example there is an official Ruby client for Riak with a domain model > that > >> is close to Riak's, but then there's also a gem called 'Ripple' that > uses a > >> domain model that is closer to what most Ruby developers are used to. > So it > >> looks like Twitter's Cassandra gem is the one that stays close to the > domain > >> model of Cassandra, and what I'm looking for is a gem that's a Cassandra > >> equivalent of RIpple. > >> > >> From some searching I found cassandra_object, which has been inactive > for > >> a couple of years, but there's a fork that looks like it's being > maintained, > >> but I have not found any kind of information to suggest the maintained > fork > >> is in general use yet. I have found quite a lot of gems of a similar > style > >> that people have started and then not really got very far with. > >> > >> So, does anybody know of a suitable gem? Would you recommend it? Or > >> perhaps you would recommend not using such a gem and sticking with the > >> lower-level client gem? > >> > >> Thanks in advance for your advice. > >> > >> Harry > >> > >> > > >
