cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: Cassandra Java Driver and DataStax
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2016 17:02:50 GMT
"Sr. Software Engineer at DataStax", imagine that.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:01 PM Aleksey Yeschenko <aleksey@apache.org> wrote:

> As a member of that governing body (Cassandra PMC), I would much prefer
> not to deal with the drivers as well.
>
> And I’m just as certain that java-driver - and other driver communities -
> would much rather prefer to keep their process and organisation instead of
> being forced to conform to ours.
>
> I’m finding it hard to see a single party that would benefit from such a
> merge, and who suffers from the current state of things.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 17:46:48, James Carman (james@carmanconsulting.com)
> wrote:
>
> How does it add more complexity by having one governing body (the PMC)?
> What I am suggesting is that the driver project be somewhat of a subproject
> or a "module". It can still have its own life cycle, just like it does now.
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:44 PM Nate McCall <nate@thelastpickle.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It doesnt. But then we add complexity in communicating and managing
> > versions, releases, etc. to the project. Again, from my experience with
> > hector, I just didnt want the hassle of owning that within the project
> > confines.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:30 AM, James Carman <
> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Who said the driver has to be released with the database?
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:29 PM Nate McCall <nate@thelastpickle.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, James Carman <
> > > james@carmanconsulting.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So why not just donate the Java driver and keep that in house?
> > > Cassandra
> > > > is
> > > > > a Java project. Makes sense to me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I won't deny there is an argument to be made here, but as a former
> > client
> > > > maintainer (Hector), current ASF committer (Usergrid) and active
> > > community
> > > > member since late 2009, my opinion is that this would be a step
> > > backwards.
> > > >
> > > > Maintaining Hector independently allowed me the freedom to release
> > major
> > > > features with technology that I wanted to use while maintaining
> > backwards
> > > > compatibility without having to be bound to the project's release
> cycle
> > > and
> > > > process. (And to use a build system that didnt suck).
> > > >
> > > > The initial concern of the use of the word "controls" is *super* not
> > cool
> > > > and I hope that this is being fixed. That said, the reality, from my
> > > > (external to DataStax) perspective, is that this is not the case. I
> > like
> > > > the current project separation the way it is and don't feel like
> there
> > is
> > > > any attempt at "control" of the java driver's direction and
> > development.
> > > >
> > > > -Nate
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------------
> > Nate McCall
> > Austin, TX
> > @zznate
> >
> > CTO
> > Apache Cassandra Consulting
> > http://www.thelastpickle.com
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message