Re: Evolving the client protocol
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 4:49 AM, mck <mck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We should, as open source contributors, put business concerns to the side
> and welcome opportunities to work across company and product lines.
I resent the fact that you're calling this a business concern. This isn't a
business concern, and as a committer and ASF member you should be able to
discern the difference.
> The native protocol is the protocol of the Apache Cassandra project and
> never meant to be a standard protocol.
> Don't get me wrong, protocol-impacting changes/additions are very much
> welcome if reasonable for Cassandra, and both CASSANDRA-14311 and
> certainly worthy. Both the definition of done of those ticket certainly
> include the server implementation imo,
> 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
> idea, it'll get committed, but the chances of a review leading to a commit
> without an implementation is nearly zero.
The only reason business names came into it is that someone drew a false
equivalence between two businesses. They're not equivalent, and the lack of
equivalence likely explains why this thread keeps bouncing around -
Datastax would have written a patch and contributed it to the project, and
Scylla didn't. But again, the lack of protocol changes so far ISN'T because
the project somehow favors one company more than the other (it doesn't),
the protocol changes havent happened because nobody's submitted a patch.
You're a committer Mick, if you think it belongs in the database, write the
patches and get them reviewed. Until then, the project isn't going to be
bullied into changing the protocol without an implementation.