avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From harry wang <cool...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Avro RPC implementation using Netty
Date Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:19:12 GMT
Serving multi-Responder on one port is a good idea.

- harry

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org> wrote:

> On 06/25/2010 11:21 PM, James Todd wrote:
>> for your approach, what is the reconciliation process for when the
>> user-provided-responder differs from that as specified in the
>> request header? and again the question, why require the user to specify a
>> responder when the request handshake includes all
>> the necessary data to make such a decision? perhaps this is a detail but
>> to
>> me it is a key design consideration.
>> i do believe the proper solution is to internalize the responder delegate
>> based on inspection of the request handshake.
> This is a good question, but to me it seems separate from Netty
> integration.
> With HTTP one can run many Avro services on a single port by hosting
> different services at different URLs.  With a raw socket-based approach one
> could use a port per protocol.  But that can be awkward, since it requires
> more configuration and potentially more holes in firewalls.
> Dispatching on the protocol name in the handshake to different responders
> might thus be a useful feature.  But, again, this can be implemented
> separately from permitting folks to use a Netty-based transport.  A Server,
> rather than containing a single Responder, might contain a ResponderSet or
> somesuch.
> Doug

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message