Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Avro >> mail # user >> Bypassing "handshake" in Responder


+
Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-25, 17:08
+
Doug Cutting 2013-02-25, 18:38
+
Pankaj Shroff 2013-02-25, 19:25
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Bypassing "handshake" in Responder
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

Pankaj

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Pankaj Shroff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Doug
>
> 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!
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/avro-user/201302.mbox/%3CCALEq1Z_rt8FasjSR%2B%2BOOgE3ogrAh0Y%2BtL3z47hznuiBAtfvWmw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> Pankaj
>
> [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?
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> 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
>> implementation
>> > of the OpenRTB protocol.
>> >
>> > We have made a design goal to model the protocol using Avro protocol
>> files
>> > (.avpr) and generate types defined in the protocol schema using Avro .
>> The
>> > challenge is that the protocol does not necessarily require the use of
>> Avro/
>> > Binary wire encoding - or even the use of Avro/ RPC context. In fact
>> many
>> > counter parties have proprietary implementations supporting either
>> Protobuf
>> > or Json encoding.
>> >
>> > Now, there is a Json encoder/decoder in the Avro package but it seems
>> that
>> > the approach is a "schema-first" approach. The JsonEncoder assumes that
>> the
>> > encoding on the wire still follows the Avro Json encoding - which
>> includes a
>> > handshake followed by schema confirmation on both sides (client and
>> server).
>> >
>> > 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,
>> lets
>> > say, raw Json encoding is being used
>> >
>> > 1) the handshake is rather Avro specific - and we would like to
>> completely
>> > 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
>> without
>> > 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
>> use
>> > 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

Pankaj Shroff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+
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