You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to common-issues@hadoop.apache.org by "Binglin Chang (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2012/11/01 01:19:12 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (HADOOP-8990) Some minor issus in protobuf based
ipc
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Binglin Chang updated HADOOP-8990:
----------------------------------
Description:
1. proto file naming
RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeaderProto, but also RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename "hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
2. proto class naming
In rpc request RpcPayloadHeaderProto includes callId, but in rpc response callId is included in RpcResponseHeaderProto, and there is also HadoopRpcRequestProto, this is just too confusing.
3. The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
RpcRequestWritable and RpcResponseWritable.
rpc response exception name and stack trace string.
And RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but RpcResponseWritable uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message.
I think wrap request and response into single RequstProto and ResponseProto is better, cause this gives a formal complete wire format definition,
or developer need to look into the source code and hard coding the communication format.
These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use these rpc interfaces.
Some of these issues can be solved without breaking compatibility, but some can not, but at least we need to know what will be changed and what will stay stable?
was:
1. proto file naming
RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeader, but also RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename "hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
2. proto class naming
In rpc request RpcPayloadHeader includes callId, but in rpc response callId is included in RpcResponseHeader, and there is also HadoopRpcRequestHeader, this is just too confusing.
3. The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
RpcRequestWritable and RpcResponseWritable.
rpc response exception name and stack trace string.
And RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but RpcResponseWritable uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message.
I think wrap request and response into single RequstProto and ResponseProto is better, cause this gives a formal complete wire format definition,
or developer need to look into the source code and hard coding the communication format.
These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use these rpc interfaces.
Some of these issues can be solved without breaking compatibility, but some can not, but at least we need to know what will be changed and what will stay stable?
> Some minor issus in protobuf based ipc
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-8990
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8990
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Binglin Chang
> Priority: Minor
>
> 1. proto file naming
> RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeaderProto, but also RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
> hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename "hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
> How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
> 2. proto class naming
> In rpc request RpcPayloadHeaderProto includes callId, but in rpc response callId is included in RpcResponseHeaderProto, and there is also HadoopRpcRequestProto, this is just too confusing.
> 3. The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
> RpcRequestWritable and RpcResponseWritable.
> rpc response exception name and stack trace string.
> And RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but RpcResponseWritable uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
> Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message.
> I think wrap request and response into single RequstProto and ResponseProto is better, cause this gives a formal complete wire format definition,
> or developer need to look into the source code and hard coding the communication format.
> These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use these rpc interfaces.
> Some of these issues can be solved without breaking compatibility, but some can not, but at least we need to know what will be changed and what will stay stable?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira