Mailing-List: contact cassandra-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of michael.greene@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.245 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
         :content-type;
        b=c6IZ4x3a83/EUuEIsGpsjC836HCKgxNcTsGEyctDrhtdAb8NMkMmIkvfugnS6wcq4M
         VlWUcrY8C3evTe2f0cl34Tq0ho7ap+Wtt4FSyAKYF10NpnfEGWXF+DnsDYEDFkYNDQFW
         ku4PSb0FPRjyve0ZWSQcqb8aWW2Exe57NVnXY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <05BE7312-0D04-4D13-8762-A77777370A28@chrisgoffinet.com>
References: <b6f68fc60908211136w97b9df7p9b7d7c8503adabc0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e06563880908240821l7e6c52d0oad87fd91762c724f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <876ef97a0908240826m26175c31oa8509c83c02ad115@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e06563880908240846k39620c37h1159d962aa5365e9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <876ef97a0908240850l907aeddwde4c4835595671d8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e06563880908240853j62d68dffuc58863c8e1a0d41d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <05BE7312-0D04-4D13-8762-A77777370A28@chrisgoffinet.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:07:39 -0500
Message-ID: <f4d6a21a0908240907t32c9d4bdq519c5b6537acdf85@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Data model names, reloaded
From: Michael Greene <michael.greene@gmail.com>
To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d386febe32330471e56a6f

--0016e6d386febe32330471e56a6f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree that this is too late for 0.4.  0.4 is a huge improvement over 0.3,
we've already released a beta, a second beta should be forthcoming, and we
need to get this in users' hands.  I'm not sure I agree with Jonathan's
corollary, as there should always be room for making changes which would
benefit our users, even major API changes (after 1.0, this might be a
different story).
Evan, Ryan, et al. have put a lot of work into this, and their proposals are
sound.  However, there are now several groups using Cassandra in production
or pre-production systems that would like to see a 0.4 release out soon.

Michael

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chris Goffinet <cg@chrisgoffinet.com>wrote:

> +1 I am going to agree with Jonathan. I have been quiet mostly on this
> thread, just to see how things played out. I stopped reading after awhile,
> as I feel we really need to move past this for now, and defer. Improving
> cassandra's performance, feature set and stability should be our focus IMHO.
> Right now we have features that make it difficult to deploy into production.
> Until we have those things resolved and working, having major user adoption
> isn't going to help until we get all of those things worked out.
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
>  On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Toby DiPasquale<codeslinger@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That was not my intent. Evan's provided some good stuff. However, I
>>> think your original post would not have incited my post if you'd
>>> provided some point at which this could be re-evaluated instead of
>>> implying that the subject needed to be dropped altogether. Do you have
>>> a suggestion as to when this could be revisited?
>>>
>>
>> The corollary to "it's too late for 0.4" is "it's too late, period."
>>
>> Every project reaches a point past which it's no longer worth
>> revisiting certain fundamental decisions.  IMO Cassandra has passed
>> that point for "what do we call a Column."
>>
>> -Jonathan
>>
>
>

--0016e6d386febe32330471e56a6f--