Re: [DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-17562 and CASSANDRA-15254; future of JMX and Virtual tables

2022-06-21 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
Hi everyone, I just realized the email I have prepared to close this thread was never sent, staying still in my draft… So better later than never and apologize for that. Considering David’s response and that people didn’t express strong opinion, new setters were not added (you probably saw already

Re: [DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-17562 and CASSANDRA-15254; future of JMX and Virtual tables

2022-05-13 Thread David Capwell
s/I don’t feel its non-trivial/I feel its non-trivial/. Update support requires a good amount of testing, so isn’t as simple as calling the existing setters (mostly defining a Function that works for callers for each complex type) > On May 13, 2022, at 10:26 AM, David Capwell wrote: > > CASSA

Re: [DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-17562 and CASSANDRA-15254; future of JMX and Virtual tables

2022-05-13 Thread David Capwell
CASSANDRA-15254 only adds support for updating, we already have support for viewing (getter). The work to support mostly gets complicated for complex types such as collections, so I don’t feel its non-trivial as we have complex types in our config that has to be dealt with, so since there isn’t

[DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-17562 and CASSANDRA-15254; future of JMX and Virtual tables

2022-05-13 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
Hi everyone, Code freeze started but I wanted to seek for community agreement on one important topic. After CASSANDRA-15234 we have the new yaml format for duration, data storage and data rate config parameters. New JMX methods with the new format are created since then for new parameters like gu