On 2018-04-24 04:18, Nate McCall wrote:
Folks,
Before this goes much further, let's take a step back for a second.
I am hearing the following: Folks are fine with CASSANDRA-14311 and
CASSANDRA-2848 *BUT* they don't make much sense from the project's
perspective without a reference implementation. I think the shard
concept is too abstract for the project right now, so we should
probably set that one aside.
Dor and Avi, I appreciate you both engaging directly on this. Where
can we find common ground on this?
I started with three options:
1. Scylla (or other protocol implementers) contribute spec changes, and
each implementer implements them on their own
This was rejected.
2. Scylla defines and implements spec changes on its own, and when
Cassandra implements similar changes, it will retroactively apply the
Scylla change if it makes technical sense
IOW, no gratuitous divergence, but no hard commitment either.
I received no feedback on this.
3. No cooperation.
This is the fall-back option which I would like to avoid if possible.
It's main advantage is that it avoids long email threads and flamewars.
There was also a suggestion made in this thread:
4. Scylla defines spec changes and also implements them for Cassandra
That works for some changes but not all (for example, thread-per-core
awareness, or changes that require significant effort). I would like to
find a way that works for all of the changes that we want to make.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
