Re: Evolving the client protocol
They aren't even remotely similar, they're VERY different. Here's a few
1) Most of Datastax's work for the first 5, 6, 8 years of existence focused
on driving users to cassandra from other DBs (see all of the "Cassandra
Summits" that eventually created trademark friction) ; Scylla's marketing
is squarely Scylla v Cassandra. Ultimately they're both companies out to
make money, but one has a history of driving users to Cassandra, and the
other is trying to siphon users away from Cassandra.
2) Datastax may not be actively contributing as much as they used to, but
some ridiculous number of engineering hours got paid out of their budget -
maybe 80% of total lines of code? Maybe higher (though it's decreasing day
by day). By contrast, Scylla has exactly zero meaningful concrete code
contributions to the project, uses a license that makes even sharing
concepts prohibitive, only has a handful or so JIRAs opened (which is
better than zero), but has effectively no goodwill in the eyes of many of
the longer-term community members (in large part because of #1, and also
because of the way they positioned their talk-turned-product announcement
at the competitor-funded 2016 summit).
3) Datastax apparently respects the project enough that they'd NEVER come
in and ask for a protocol spec change without providing a reference
4) To that end, native protocol changes aren't something anyone is anxious
to shove in without good reason. Even with a reference implementation, and
a REALLY GOOD REASON (namely data correctness / protection from
corruption), https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13304 has been
sitting patch available for OVER A YEAR.
So again: we have a Cassandra native protocol, and we have a process for
changing it, and that process is contributor agnostic. Anyone who wants a
change can submit a patch, and it'll get reviewed, and maybe if it's a good
idea, it'll get committed, but the chances of a review leading to a commit
without an implementation is nearly zero.
Would be happy to see this thread die now. There's nothing new coming out
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Eric Stevens <mightye@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let met just say that as an observer to this conversation -- and someone
> who believes that compatibility, extensibility, and frankly competition
> bring out the best in products -- I'm fairly surprised and disappointed
> with the apparent hostility many community members have shown toward a
> sincere attempt by another open source product to find common ground here.
> Yes, Scylla has a competing OSS project (albeit under a different
> license). They also have a business built around it. It's hard for me to
> see that as dramatically different than the DataStax relationship to this
> community. Though I would love to be shown why.