Hi there,

Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me if
I'm wrong).

Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a complete
PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a framework
but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework.

So just curious the rationale behind this?

--
Hangjun Ye

Our project is facing similar problem: choosing a PRC framework.
So I want to know if there are any drawbacks in Avro/Thrift and then Hadoop
doesn't use them.

Would appreciate if any insights could be shared for this!
2013/1/9 Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi there,
>
> Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me if
> I'm wrong).
>
> Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a complete
> PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a framework
> but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework.
>
> So just curious the rationale behind this?
>
> --
> Hangjun Ye
>

--
Hangjun Ye

Avro and Thrift both work well for RPC implementations.

I have lately been using protobufs with protobuf-rpc-pro and have been very
happy with it.  It has much of the debuggability of Thrift, but with
protobufs.

See http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc-pro/

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Our project is facing similar problem: choosing a PRC framework.
> So I want to know if there are any drawbacks in Avro/Thrift and then Hadoop
> doesn't use them.
>
> Would appreciate if any insights could be shared for this!
>
>
> 2013/1/9 Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me if
> > I'm wrong).
> >
> > Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a complete
> > PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a
> framework
> > but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework.
> >
> > So just curious the rationale behind this?
> >
> > --
> > Hangjun Ye
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hangjun Ye
>

There are several important metrics in choosing a RPC framework, include: performance, multi-language support, version compatibility, usability and product maturity.
PB almost plays well in all aspects, so I think that may be the reason why community choose it.

Thanks,

Junping

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Dunning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:27:36 PM
Subject: Re: Question about protocol buffer RPC

Avro and Thrift both work well for RPC implementations.

I have lately been using protobufs with protobuf-rpc-pro and have been very
happy with it.  It has much of the debuggability of Thrift, but with
protobufs.

See http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc-pro/

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Our project is facing similar problem: choosing a PRC framework.
> So I want to know if there are any drawbacks in Avro/Thrift and then Hadoop
> doesn't use them.
>
> Would appreciate if any insights could be shared for this!
>
>
> 2013/1/9 Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me if
> > I'm wrong).
> >
> > Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a complete
> > PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a
> framework
> > but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework.
> >
> > So just curious the rationale behind this?
> >
> > --
> > Hangjun Ye
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hangjun Ye
>

Thank you, Ted, Junping, that's very helpful!
2013/1/9 Jun Ping Du <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> There are several important metrics in choosing a RPC framework, include:
> performance, multi-language support, version compatibility, usability and
> product maturity.
> PB almost plays well in all aspects, so I think that may be the reason why
> community choose it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Junping
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Dunning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:27:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Question about protocol buffer RPC
>
> Avro and Thrift both work well for RPC implementations.
>
> I have lately been using protobufs with protobuf-rpc-pro and have been very
> happy with it.  It has much of the debuggability of Thrift, but with
> protobufs.
>
> See http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc-pro/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Our project is facing similar problem: choosing a PRC framework.
> > So I want to know if there are any drawbacks in Avro/Thrift and then
> Hadoop
> > doesn't use them.
> >
> > Would appreciate if any insights could be shared for this!
> >
> >
> > 2013/1/9 Hangjun Ye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me
> if
> > > I'm wrong).
> > >
> > > Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a
> complete
> > > PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a
> > framework
> > > but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework.
> > >
> > > So just curious the rationale behind this?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Hangjun Ye
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hangjun Ye
> >
>

--
Hangjun Ye