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 00:48:45 GMT
Have you attempted to upgrade thrift to thrift 9?

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Gerrit Sundaram <gerritsundaram@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Khurrum,
>
> As far as I know, the protobuf package was shaded in bookkeeper. there will
> no backward compatible. At this point, I am not interested in bumping bc's
> protobuf, especially the bk version is still twitter's branch.
>
> 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 out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that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