On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 22:11 +0000, Courtney Robinson wrote: > I've been looking at the Java and Python drivers and they are both > using Thrift. I thought the idea was to get rid of thrift/avro?
The idea is to create an alternative to the tightly-coupled object-oriented RPC interface. This initial version uses Thrift so that effort could be focused on implementing the language, and have something useful for this release. And, until it's complete (see my original mail for the list of outstanding items), the RPC methods can serve to fill in the holes. Baby steps. (Hopefully )for the next version, we'll replace Thrift with a dedicated protocol, one that eliminates the Thrift dependency, and more importantly, implements streaming. This should be transparent to applications for the most part though. > The two implemented (however partial) drivers seem to have similar > naming conventions for class and methods. Has it been agreed to try > and do this? Yes, insomuch as this is reasonable/practical. > I reckon it'd be a good idea if that was the case because then no > matter which language driver you're using you you can easily use any > other driver/language since the methods/function names would be the > same or similar and would mean its easier to develop different > components in different languages since you won't have to learn a new > API for the various drivers... or at least you'd have an easier time > > I think this would address one of the problems now with different > clients providing their own API which vary widely across the board. For the record, I don't see CQL (and its drivers) as a replacement for high-level idiomatic client libraries. In much the same way as projects like Spring, and Hiberate, or SQLAlchemy provide abstraction for RBDMS and SQL, we'll still have client libraries which build their own APIs, according to their own requirements, on top of CQL. -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com
