Quick comment on libraries for different languages.
The libraries for different languages should almost ALWAYS look
different. They should look like what someone using that language
expects an API to look like. If someone gave me a python API that used
java's builder pattern instead of named keyword arguments I would have
to shoot myself.
-Jeremiah
________________________________
From: Gregori Schmidt [mailto:grokdata@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:04 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ditching Cassandra
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Eric Evans <eevans@rackspace.com>
wrote:
The client space as a whole *is* a mess, despite heroic efforts
on the
part of our third-party API maintainers, but forcing them
in-tree is not
going to solve anything. In fact, it would very likely make it
worse by
adding unnecessary overhead to contribution, and discouraging
innovation.
I can understand your reluctance to do the clients "in-tree" since it
will be a lot of work and people will no doubt be upset if their client
is not chosen for a given language. But I think this is the wrong
approach for three reasons.
First, the client libraries in different languages should look alike.
Having libraries that look different in different languages is a very
bad idea indeed.
|