One of the reasons why HTTP was chosen for the reference RPC was because it
can be made proxy friendly.
Please open a JIRA on this issue to discuss. If you have an approach that
is already in progress, submit a patch! Apache is a 'do-ocrocy'.
I suspect there will be some discussion about backwards compatibility and
the spec, but the experts on Avro RPC will have more to contribute to that
On 8/24/11 9:39 AM, "Shafi, Saleem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
> We¹re experimenting a bit with Avro and we¹ve got a use case that I¹m hoping
> to get some help with.. we¹d like clients to be able to send messages to a
> server that would then forward the messages to a third-party (still in Avro),
> but the messaging would be asynchronous.. the trouble we¹re running into is
> with the schema handshake since there¹s someone between the client and the
> ultimate recipient of the message.. we¹d like to avoid having the middle-man
> open up the body of the HTTP request but we can¹t negotiate the handshake
> without it..
> Since the transport is abstracted out, would it make any sense at all to push
> the handshake request into HTTP headers for the HTTP transport? Other
> transports could still embed the handshake message with the rest of the
> message, but by pushing the handshake into the headers for HTTP, a proxy like
> ours could negotiate the handshake without opening up the body.. this could
> arguably improve performance even in normal request/response scenarios since
> the body wouldn¹t have to be parsed twice in cases where the client has to
> resend the request with a new schema..
> If this seems like a reasonable approach, we might be able to put together an
> prototype implementation with one of the bindings and see if it makes sense to
> adjust the spec..