Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Handling protocol versions


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Handling protocol versions
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Removing the versioning altogether seems good.  That leads to much less
> coupling between the client and the server.
>
> I would vote to use BlockingInterface (to replace our versioned protocol
> class) everywhere and just write our own rpc/ipc.  Stack walked me through
> some of the code that is needed for using all of the Protobuf Service and
> Protobuf Blocking Channels; That route seems to have lots of it's own
> cruft.  So if we're going to have a clean up, we shouldn't start out with
> something knowing the result will be crufty.
>
>
Let me try doing the above (Removing versioning and not going the pb
Service route).  We can't use BlockingInterface to replace
VersionedProtocol... BIs do not have a common ancestor.   Let me play
around....  I'll be back.
> Additionally we should move the exception responses into either the header
> or the body.  As it currently stands having to conditionally cast the next
> message into either a response or an error just seems like we're
> re-implementing protobuf's optional.
>
>
I think this a good idea.  Will try this too.

Thanks E,
St.Ack
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB