[jira] [Commented] (THRIFT-2504) I want a server-side upgrade to MultiplexedProtocol to maintain backwards compatibility with older clients

["James E. King, III (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-2504?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15833075#comment-15833075 ] 

James E. King, III commented on THRIFT-2504:
--------------------------------------------

Sorry, process leakage from corporate agile/scrum story creation at work.  The bigger question is do we need or want this across all MultiplexedProtocol implementations or do we simply say that you can run your old service on an old port and your new service on a new port, much like one needs two ports for non-secure and secure access?  If that's the case we can resolve as "Won't Do".  I just wanted to try and clear out the items in the backlog that have pull requests from 2014.

> I want a server-side upgrade to MultiplexedProtocol to maintain backwards compatibility with older clients
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: THRIFT-2504
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-2504
>             Project: Thrift
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Java - Library
>            Reporter: Aleksey Pesternikov
>            Assignee: James E. King, III
>
> Multiplexed Protocol provides a number of benefits.  It would be useful for a developer to be able to upgrade a server to use MultiplexedProtocol while still allowing older clients using BinaryProtocol (or others?) to submit their older requests and have them processed as they were before the upgrade, or perhaps at the very least get an exception telling them to upgrade their client.  Right now I believe the behavior of connecting this way is undefined; correct me if I am wrong.
> In THRIFT-66 I handled this by using an unused byte in the VERSION_1 protocol header which was always initialized to zero, so I made "channel zero" something that the server side could implement.  In that solution however both ends continued to use BinaryProtocol so it was easy to maintain backwards compatibility.  In this case we have a server speaking MultiplexedProtocol and a client speaking some other (BinaryProtocol, let's say).  I'm curious what folks who worked on MultiplexedProtocol think about this notion.
> This is one of those changes that would require every language to adopt and be made part of the core requirements of MultiplexedProtocol if people feel it is worth it.  The alternative is that the developer could continue to run an older protocol server on the same port that throws an exception telling the client to upgrade and what port to go to in the message.  This isn't exactly firewall friendly because it needs a new port opened but it is a possible solution.  Thoughts and suggestions welcome as to whether this is worth doing or we should resolve as won't fix.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)