cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sylvain Lebresne (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (CASSANDRA-7791) Consider re-allowing to refer to UDT outside of their keyspace
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2014 12:04:18 GMT
Sylvain Lebresne created CASSANDRA-7791:
-------------------------------------------

             Summary: Consider re-allowing to refer to UDT outside of their keyspace
                 Key: CASSANDRA-7791
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7791
             Project: Cassandra
          Issue Type: Improvement
            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
             Fix For: 3.0



In CASSANDRA-6643 we decided to make UDT inaccessible outside of their keyspace of definition.
Doing so mainly has the advantage that when we drop a keyspace, we don't have to worry its
UDT being used in another keyspace. However, this directly conflict with functions (UDF) being
global: we can't have functions working on UDT if functions are global and we don't allow
UDT access outside their keyspace. Which, I believe, leave us with the following possible
options:

# we make UDT accessible anywhere (though their fully qualified name).
# we don't support functions on UDT at all.
# we make functions keyspace-scoped, either always, or only if they apply to UDT.
# we revert CASSANDRA-6438 and make UDT global.

In a perfect world I would lean towards 4: the arguments to make UDT keyspace-scoped where
not wrong per-se but weak in hindsight given the other options here. It is however basically
too late: changing it would be a breaking change so we can't reasonably change this post-2.1.0,
and while it's not released yet, it's not a change we can make without substantially delaying
the final.

Option 2 feels rather lame in my book.

Option 3 feels pretty messy. Having 2 types of UDF, some keyspace-scoped and some that are
not would be super confusing. Saying that ll UDF are keyspace-scoped feels limiting, and we
would still be somewhat inconsistent with our existing hard-coded functions that are global.

Which leaves option 1 which might be the most pragmatic. Having to check that UDTs are not
used before allowing keyspace drop don't sound like a huge deal to me.




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message