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 jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=hBe6jEDbQfwUfQsjieEuUVnJYdK25iwChBStEYDG5gCUx+V/BOb1zAMS7jpfKpWwBu
         OvycfDBoao5QzRdwm6yM/4KORAAzKGkyc25EdFnb1gfl0vzYO9tPemDRTFW9l9LCBn3c
         MdrXBmYQpt0Z2YxIcl3k+iMIB3tP/DjVDVL+w=
Subject: Re: plugins/triggers/coprocessors
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin7fOVvD6K-dAW4f85U4ydH+3Hez8pp_hsc-_au@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:31:00 -0600
Cc: Hentschel Martin <hemartin@inf.ethz.ch>,
 Maxim Grinev <maxim@grinev.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <55942F02-36EE-4EDD-B952-4E6EFC375B4D@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>
 <AANLkTikw+26v1h-9Qk_neJKQxDBUaWk+6A-STxjUeLUB@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin7fOVvD6K-dAW4f85U4ydH+3Hez8pp_hsc-_au@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org

So from here I guess it's a matter of working out the comments/concerns =
presented on 1311 and any future discussion sounds like it belongs =
there.

Like I said, I just wanted to initiate discussion since it had been a =
while and the dust from 0.7 had settled.  It seems like an incredibly =
useful concept to have as a core feature.  Another motivation was Ben =
Black presenting at Strata.  He had mentioned that he and Cliff had =
worked through doing server side operations which sounded similar =
(though their effort sounded like it was not generalizable).  I've =
talked to others in the community that have hoped for a feature like =
this too.  In any case, since it crossed ticket boundaries, I thought it =
would be most appropriate to gauge interest as a discussion thread.

Hopefully this will help for people who would like to either help out =
with implementation or give feedback as to how it can be made general =
purpose or more Cassandra-y.

On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Jeff Hodges wrote:

> As the dude that worked on the 1016 prototype, I agree with this.
>=20
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Stu Hood <stuhood@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jeremy Hanna =
<jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com>wrote:
>>=20
>>> Thanks Maxim - I'll just go ahead and BCC you and Hentschel and move =
the
>>> discussion to the dev list.
>>>=20
>>> 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?
>>>=20
>>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Maxim Grinev wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>=20
>>>> Jeremy, thanks for starting the discussion! We don't follow the dev =
list
>>> closely so it was a good idea to email it directly.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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 for
>>> each mutation to the column family and parametrized by the mutation.
>>>>       =95 The mutation, which is the trigger parameter, is the =
"new" value.
>>> The trigger cannot see the "old" value.
>>>>       =95 Triggers are executed asynchronously some time after the =
write
>>> which fired it is acknowledged to the client.
>>>>       =95 Triggers are executed once during normal execution. We =
guarantee
>>> "at least once" execution in case of node failures.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Maxim
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jeremy Hanna
>>>> <jeremy.hanna1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I was just wondering if it would be a good time to unify =
discussions on
>>> plugins/triggers/coprocessors?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1016
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1311
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I was going to email the dev list but since I don't know if all of =
you
>>> follow the dev list and you guys are the ones that expressed the =
most
>>> interest, I thought I would start here.
>>>>=20
>>>> Yeah, they're all tackling basically the same problem. For which we
>>>> should have a single solution.
>>>>=20
>>>> -ryan
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20