incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Estes <tim.es...@digitalreasoning.com>
Subject Re: Data model names, reloaded
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:26:30 GMT
+1. I can speak to having to educate a large community on some of the  
merits of these concepts. Moving to the other names would create a lot  
of confusion such as "why don't we just run an Oracle RAC if we just  
need to scale the Database, record sets, and fields"

With Columns, SuperColumns, and key spaces - they know they are  
working with something different and do need to think a little  
different. I realize this creates some educational overhead but it  
comes at savings in sense ambiguity that would be introduced by the  
proposed shift.

-- 
Tim Estes
CEO
Digital Reasoning Systems


On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Eric Evans wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 08:50 -0700, Ryan King wrote:
>> We have never indicated that we expected others to do the work. I
>> actually have some patches for our first renaming suggestion already,
>> but given the massive size of the change, we though it prudent to
>> discuss it with others before investing the time in making the  
>> change.
>> I've set aside several days this week just to work on patches for
>> this.
>
> To me, it's no consolation that you guys are willing to make the  
> source
> and documentation changes. It doesn't matter *who* makes them, the
> amount of churn is going to be enormous, the proposed changes are very
> destabilizing, and I would argue that the current naming is so
> entrenched that no matter how thorough you think you are being,  
> context
> will be lost.
>
> There is also all sorts of "documentation" that is beyond your control
> to change. Presentation materials, videos, blog postings, etc will all
> be rendered moot the moment changes like these occur.
>
> That's not to mention all of the current users who will now be  
> forced to
> rewire their brains to understand the new terminology.
>
> Now the argument as I understand it is that the proposed naming is so
> much more succinct, that it will make Cassandra so much easier for
> people to understand, that it warrants all of this cost. That it  
> will be
> worth it in the long term. I disagree. It isn't clear to me that the
> proposed names are *any* better than what we have, let alone that they
> warrant this sort of disruptive change
>
> -- 
> Eric Evans
> eevans@rackspace.com
>


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