Re: [VOTE] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

+1 (nb) - Thanks for all of the suggestions and Bernardo for wrangling the CEP into shape! Doug > On Jul 1, 2024, at 3:06 PM, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > > +1 > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 11:58 AM Ariel Weisberg > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am +1 on CEP-42 with the latest updat

Re: [VOTE] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

+1 On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 11:58 AM Ariel Weisberg wrote: > Hi, > > I am +1 on CEP-42 with the latest updates to the CEP to clarify syntax, > error messages, constraint naming and generated naming, alter/drop, > describe etc. > > I think this now tracks very closely to how other SQL databases def

Re: [VOTE] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

Hi, I am +1 on CEP-42 with the latest updates to the CEP to clarify syntax, error messages, constraint naming and generated naming, alter/drop, describe etc. I think this now tracks very closely to how other SQL databases define constraints and the syntax is easily extensible to multi-column an

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch to update a nodetool obsolete dependency (airline)

I don't personally think there is a strong need for a feature branch. If it makes it easy for you, please go ahead with a feature branch. One thing I had raised in the past was the desire to have a flag that would generate machine readable output for nodetool commands. If this can be done with a m

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch to update a nodetool obsolete dependency (airline)

Oh yes ... THAT thread. Everytime I want to change the output of a nodetool command, it is a never-ending story of running in circles if we can do that. My perception is that we are very sensitive to what it looks like and that we are not breaking it. Addition is mostly fine but god forbid when som

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch to update a nodetool obsolete dependency (airline)

On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > I also don't think keeping the output consistent needs to be a strict long > term requirement. We *should* have either a JSON output option for every > command, or a virtual table for structured data. I don't remember us ever > making a pr

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch to update a nodetool obsolete dependency (airline)

> I personally don't have anything against what you suggested, however I think that this kind of work will put additional stress on us being sure that the output of the commands will be exactly as it is now. We do have nodetool tests which are covering the tests for the output which is very handy i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-rc1

> Perhaps we should consider a Milestone release. At least in some projects > this is a way to provide a test bed with known issues that will be corrected > before an RC. How does that differ from beta in our lifecycle? API stable but a test bed to suss out issues like this. On Mon, Jul 1, 20

Re: [VOTE] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

With all the feedback that came in the discussion thread after the call for votes, I’d like to extend the period another 72 hours starting today. As before, a vote passes if there are at least 3 binding +1s and no binding vetoes. Thanks, Bernardo Botella > On Jun 24, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Bernardo

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch to update a nodetool obsolete dependency (airline)

+1 on the feature branch allowing breaking the effort into smaller chunks that can be even worked in parallel. > On Jul 1, 2024, at 3:13 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > > Hi Maxim, > > thank you for doing this. I think that Picocli is a great choice, comparing > it with airline v2 which is a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-rc1

Perhaps we should consider a Milestone release. At least in some projects this is a way to provide a test bed with known issues that will be corrected before an RC. On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 9:50 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > This came in after our vote, but we might also have a problem with > performin

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-42: Constraints Framework

Thanks everyone for all the feedback that came in after the call for votes. To Yifan's point, yes you are right, and I updated the CEP with the expressions. There’s been a really good discussion around adding or supporting constraints at read time. I think the point Doug made illustrate that suc

Re: [DISCUSS] Feature branch to update a nodetool obsolete dependency (airline)

Hi Maxim, thank you for doing this. I think that Picocli is a great choice, comparing it with airline v2 which is an attempt to resurrect the original airline, it seems to be way more active and popular. I personally don't have anything against what you suggested, however I think that this kind o