You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@distributedlog.apache.org by Gerrit Sundaram <ge...@gmail.com> on 2017/01/06 06:29:20 UTC
[DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Hello all,
for the comment in
https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am starting
this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for ease
extension.
I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
- bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra
dependency. and it will make things consistent.
- the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter
customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
access DL.
- using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
proxy service to support c++.
Any thoughts?
- Sijie
Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Posted by Gerrit Sundaram <ge...@gmail.com>.
Sijie, sorry. I typed your name in the wrong line. was planning to mention
since you raised the comment in the pull request.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> for the comment in https://github.com/apache/
> incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am starting this email thread for
> discussing using protobuf to store metadata for ease extension.
>
> I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
>
> - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra
> dependency. and it will make things consistent.
> - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
> out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter
> customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
> access DL.
> - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
> proxy service to support c++.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> - Sijie
>
Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Posted by Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>.
currently both netty and protobuf are shaded in bookkeeper. yahoo is
driving an upgrade of netty3 to netty4. there is no effects on upgrading
the protobuf version in bk.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Khurrum Nasim <kh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> one question - bk is using protobuf 2.x while gRPC is using 3.x. IMO, they
> are not backward compatible. Are you also considering moving bk's protobuf
> to 3.x?
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <gerritsundaram@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > for the comment in
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am
> starting
> > this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for
> ease
> > extension.
> >
> > I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
> >
> > - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra
> > dependency. and it will make things consistent.
> > - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
> > out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter
> > customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
> > access DL.
> > - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
> > proxy service to support c++.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Posted by Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>.
Have you attempted to upgrade thrift to thrift 9?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Gerrit Sundaram <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Khurrum,
>
> As far as I know, the protobuf package was shaded in bookkeeper. there will
> no backward compatible. At this point, I am not interested in bumping bc's
> protobuf, especially the bk version is still twitter's branch.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Khurrum Nasim <kh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > one question - bk is using protobuf 2.x while gRPC is using 3.x. IMO,
> they
> > are not backward compatible. Are you also considering moving bk's
> protobuf
> > to 3.x?
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <
> gerritsundaram@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > for the comment in
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am
> > starting
> > > this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for
> > ease
> > > extension.
> > >
> > > I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
> > >
> > > - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no
> extra
> > > dependency. and it will make things consistent.
> > > - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
> > > out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that
> Twitter
> > > customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
> > > access DL.
> > > - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
> > > proxy service to support c++.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Posted by Gerrit Sundaram <ge...@gmail.com>.
Khurrum,
As far as I know, the protobuf package was shaded in bookkeeper. there will
no backward compatible. At this point, I am not interested in bumping bc's
protobuf, especially the bk version is still twitter's branch.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Khurrum Nasim <kh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> one question - bk is using protobuf 2.x while gRPC is using 3.x. IMO, they
> are not backward compatible. Are you also considering moving bk's protobuf
> to 3.x?
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <gerritsundaram@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > for the comment in
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am
> starting
> > this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for
> ease
> > extension.
> >
> > I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
> >
> > - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra
> > dependency. and it will make things consistent.
> > - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
> > out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter
> > customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
> > access DL.
> > - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
> > proxy service to support c++.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Posted by Khurrum Nasim <kh...@gmail.com>.
one question - bk is using protobuf 2.x while gRPC is using 3.x. IMO, they
are not backward compatible. Are you also considering moving bk's protobuf
to 3.x?
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <ge...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> for the comment in
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am starting
> this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for ease
> extension.
>
> I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
>
> - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra
> dependency. and it will make things consistent.
> - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
> out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter
> customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
> access DL.
> - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
> proxy service to support c++.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> - Sijie
>