Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-25, 17:08
Doug Cutting 2013-02-25, 18:38
Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-25, 19:25
-Re: Bypassing "handshake" in Responder
Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-27, 19:16
I guess my question is more basic - given that this is somewhat specific to
my own use case:
How does one use other forms of Encoder/Decoder implementations that are
available in the Avro library along with the Avro-Ipc SDK.
As of 1.7.3, I see that the only Encoding/Decoding that Avro-ipc supports
is the BinaryEncoding
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Pankaj Shroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps you answered a portion of my conundrum in another thread
> (permalink below) - but there is still the handshake and reuse of
> invocation logic question. Let me also think about this a little bit.
> Thanks in any case. Avro is a great tool in any case!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This sounds like a different RPC wire format than Avro's. Avro's
>> Requestor and Responder implement Avro's RPC wire format. Avro's
>> Encode/Decoder and DatumReader/DatumWriter APIs should facilitate
>> implementation of other RPC wire formats that include Avro data.
>> Avro's Transceiver API may or may not be reusable, since it assumes
>> Avro-style framing. Parts of Requestor and Responder *might* be
>> reusable and some refactoring of those classes *might* make such reuse
>> easier, but there's not that much logic there that's not specific to
>> Avro's wire format, so it might be just as easy to reimplement this
>> layer for a different wire format. It's hard for me to say without
>> seeing a patch with a proposed refactoring. Does that make sense?
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pankaj Shroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> > We are using Avro for implementing an open source reference
>> > of the OpenRTB protocol.
>> > We have made a design goal to model the protocol using Avro protocol
>> > (.avpr) and generate types defined in the protocol schema using Avro .
>> > challenge is that the protocol does not necessarily require the use of
>> > Binary wire encoding - or even the use of Avro/ RPC context. In fact
>> > counter parties have proprietary implementations supporting either
>> > or Json encoding.
>> > Now, there is a Json encoder/decoder in the Avro package but it seems
>> > the approach is a "schema-first" approach. The JsonEncoder assumes that
>> > encoding on the wire still follows the Avro Json encoding - which
>> includes a
>> > handshake followed by schema confirmation on both sides (client and
>> > For the protocol we are implementing - this presents 2 problems if Avro/
>> > binary is not the chose encoding type for both sides - and if instead,
>> > say, raw Json encoding is being used
>> > 1) the handshake is rather Avro specific - and we would like to
>> > skip it if both sides have agreed on using raw json encoding - there
>> may be
>> > a separate info-exchange phase in the protocol that is protocol
>> specific and
>> > does not need to use Avro handshake. Is it possible to use Avro RPC
>> > the handshake?
>> > 2) we would like to use the data binding and schema resolution as
>> > implemented by the SpecificResponder class in Avro - but extend it to
>> > raw JSON - not Avro JSON - encodings.
>> > 3) We would prefer not to have to override the "respond(List<buffers>)"
>> > method of the base class Responder. This implementation always performs
>> > handshake and always uses BinaryEncoder/Decoder which removes any
>> > flexibility of using a different encoder /decoder in a derived class. We
>> > would prefer if the Responder or some derived class saves the chosen
>> > Decoder/ encoder as a protected property of the Responder object.
>> Instead of
>> > instantiating BinaryEncoder/ Decoder objects on the fly within the
Doug Cutting 2013-02-27, 19:50
Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-27, 21:38
Pankaj Shroff 2013-03-12, 21:01
Doug Cutting 2013-03-13, 16:20
Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-25, 19:15