[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cassandra-dev
Subject:    Re: Reaper as cassandra-admin
From:       Sankalp Kohli <kohlisankalp () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-08-29 15:05:28
Message-ID: 42A4A76F-8B9B-42A2-8CE5-2525CE8A6AD1 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

We can wait for a week post Freeze so everyone can participate however we need to decide after that so we can make progress. 
I am leaning towards piecemeal approach so we can review the code and pick best of all 3 options 

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 00:26, kurt greaves <kurt@instaclustr.com> wrote:
> 
> 2c: There's a lot to think about here, and as Blake already mentioned most
> people don't have time to dedicate a lot of thought to this at the moment.
> There appear to be a lot of voices missing from the discussion, and I think
> it's pretty clear this isn't super tied to the freeze, so maybe we should
> leave this discussion until next week when everyone can take part? This
> kind of goes for every sidecar related discussion going on at the moment
> IMO.
> 
> On 29 August 2018 at 16:44, Vinay Chella <vchella@netflix.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>> I haven't settled on a position yet (will have more time think about
>> things after the 9/1 freeze), but I wanted to point out that the argument
>> that something new should be written because an existing project has tech
>> debt, and we'll do it the right way this time, is a pretty common software
>> engineering mistake. The thing you're replacing usually needs to have some
>> really serious problems to make it worth replacing.
>> 
>> Agreed, Yes, I don't think we should write everything from the scratch, but
>> carry forwarding tech debt (if any) and design decisions which makes new
>> features in future difficult to develop is something that we need to
>> consider. I second Dinesh's thought on taking the best parts from available
>> projects to move forward with the right solution which works great and
>> easily pluggable.
>> 
>> -
>> Vinay Chella
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:03 PM Mick Semb Wever <mck@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> the argument that something new should be written because an existing
>>> project has tech debt, and we'll do it the right way this time, is a
>> pretty
>>> common software engineering mistake. The thing you're replacing usually
>>> needs to have some really serious problems to make it worth replacing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for writing this Blake. I'm no fan of writing from scratch.
>> Working
>>> with other people's code is the joy of open-source, imho.
>>> 
>>> Reaper is not a big project. None of its java files are large or
>>> complicated.
>>> This is not the C* codebase we're talking about.
>>> 
>>> It comes with strict code style in place (which the build enforces), unit
>>> and integration tests. The tech debt that I think of first is removing
>>> stuff that we would no longer want to support if it were inside the
>>> Cassandra project. A number of recent refactorings  have proved it's an
>>> easy codebase to work with.
>>> 
>>> It's also worth noting that Cassandra-4.x adoption is still some away, in
>>> which time Reaper will only continue to grow and gain users.
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]