distributedlog-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Khurrum Nasim <khurrumnas...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2017 07:49:16 GMT
one question - bk is using protobuf 2.x while gRPC is using 3.x. IMO, they
are not backward compatible. Are you also considering moving bk's protobuf
to 3.x?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <gerritsundaram@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> for the comment in
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am starting
> this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for ease
> extension.
>
> I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift:
>
> - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra
> dependency.   and it will make things consistent.
> - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an
> out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter
> customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to
> access DL.
> - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current
> proxy service to support c++.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> - Sijie
>

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