Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stuhood@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=hIJp9ctr+V/gkDEY5x80wSskUYwYDLZN42TTaTVCF04asBzXf4aOKJX9PeFqjBFkQA
         j0+ZbtViuaNGfcM6cXx3HRMMJIDL2VIE08pvuPWc9o4t1zJkOi++ScfkYqM7nV1n8RKj
         jgqlJrXegakuCCgx49fXz6ZTJseDkKF4b7uPY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <741C73BD-8C01-4115-BF24-5051883964B6@gmail.com>
References: <4987D180-10DB-4CC8-8EA0-86FB0922EB84@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinCGEF9qq4eyv8xYzXHKD6J+W5DNnCcqebVMhJs@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinvB3xyEnsz+Bu4EL7n=SeAgnDjgRrVKoZuXzM2@mail.gmail.com>
	<741C73BD-8C01-4115-BF24-5051883964B6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:53:29 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikw+26v1h-9Qk_neJKQxDBUaWk+6A-STxjUeLUB@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: plugins/triggers/coprocessors
From: Stu Hood <stuhood@gmail.com>
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Cc: Hentschel Martin <hemartin@inf.ethz.ch>, Maxim Grinev <maxim@grinev.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64cbcacc105b1049c0636b6

--0016e64cbcacc105b1049c0636b6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Honestly, I think we should just mark 1016 a dupe and move forward with
1311: we won't be hurting anyone's feelings, and the implementation from
1016 is: 1. much, much less complete, 2. abandoned.


On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com>w=
rote:

> Thanks Maxim - I'll just go ahead and BCC you and Hentschel and move the
> discussion to the dev list.
>
> Based on the comments on 1311 - did you have anything else to add to that=
 -
> could we unify around 1016 or 1311 and work on getting that to a general
> state of acceptance?  Were there any that were able to do some work on
> either these days?  Or are we not at that point?
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Maxim Grinev wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Jeremy, thanks for starting the discussion! We don't follow the dev lis=
t
> closely so it was a good idea to email it directly.
> >
> > It really seems to be about the same. To unify the discussions, we
> propose to list the features of each solution and compare them feature by
> feature. Here is the feature list for triggers:
> >       =95 Triggers are set on a column family. Triggers are executed fo=
r
> each mutation to the column family and parametrized by the mutation.
> >       =95 The mutation, which is the trigger parameter, is the "new" va=
lue.
> The trigger cannot see the "old" value.
> >       =95 Triggers are executed asynchronously some time after the writ=
e
> which fired it is acknowledged to the client.
> >       =95 Triggers are executed once during normal execution. We guaran=
tee
> "at least once" execution in case of node failures.
> > Cheers,
> > Maxim
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jeremy Hanna
> > <jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I was just wondering if it would be a good time to unify discussions =
on
> plugins/triggers/coprocessors?
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1016
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1311
> > >
> > > I was going to email the dev list but since I don't know if all of yo=
u
> follow the dev list and you guys are the ones that expressed the most
> interest, I thought I would start here.
> >
> > Yeah, they're all tackling basically the same problem. For which we
> > should have a single solution.
> >
> > -ryan
> >
>
>

--0016e64cbcacc105b1049c0636b6--