I don't think anyone can predict the future. CQL is nice, but there's still lots of room for improvement. There's a reason why projects like spark, shark, impala and presto exist. I would expect something to replace CQL in the future as things evolve. Plus, the type safety that thrift clients shouldn't be over looked. I love SQL and the power it gives developers, but type safety isn't one of the strengths. That's just the nature of SQL and "sql inspired" languages.
for me, Cassandra's ability to straddle strong schema like RDB and no schema like document databases is what sets it apart. I love that it covers static schema, dynamic schema and no schema better than using three different databases( RDB + object DB + document DB). plus, I like being to control exactly how I store data with Hector and thrift. I also like writing tools that take advantage of generics and strong typing. as much as some people hate thrift, it has benefits. It would be a shame to ignore the lessons history teaches us. There's a reason why things like LINQ came into existence. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:19 AM, user 01 <user...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2. *What is the future of thrift based APIs *(& specifically Astyanax) ? >> > > Logic suggests that the thrift based API will ultimately be removed, at > the time in the future when the cost of working around its moribund area of > the code exceeds the controversy involved in deprecating it. > > This will probably not happen for quite some time, but my view is that it > must happen eventually. If it *doesn't* eventually happen, my view is that > the project will have made a serious error in creating a database with two > different, non-pluggable APIs. > > =Rob > >
