avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thoughts on an RPC protocol
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:29:47 GMT
Scott Carey wrote:
> I also have not wrapped my head around routing/proxy use cases.  From
> a somewhat ignorant perspective on them -- I'd rather have a solid
> point-to-point protocol that just works, is simple, and can meet the
> vast majority of use cases with high performance than one that
> happens to be capable of sophisticated routing but has a lot of other
> limitations or is a lot harder to implement and debug.

FWIW, they're theoretical at this point.  I was only stating that 
prefixing every request and response with handshakes makes stuff like 
proxies trivial, since the protocol becomes stateless.  Once we start 
having sessions things get trickier.  For example, many HTTP client 
libraries cache connections, so, if you're building on top of one of 
those, it's hard to know when a new connection is opened.

One approach is to declare that the current framing and handshake rules 
only apply to HTTP, currently our only standard transport.  Then we can 
define a new transport that's point-to-point, stateful, etc. which may 
handle framing and handshakes differently.  Thus we can retain 
back-compatibility.  Make sense?

Doug

Mime
View raw message