distributedlog-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] using protobuf than thrift
Date Sat, 07 Jan 2017 00:47:57 GMT
currently both netty and protobuf are shaded in bookkeeper. yahoo is
driving an upgrade of netty3 to netty4. there is no effects on upgrading
the protobuf version in bk.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Khurrum Nasim <khurrumnasimm@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter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