geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hitesh Khamesra <hitesh...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [gemfire-dev] New Client-Server Protocol Proposal
Date Wed, 03 May 2017 16:29:37 GMT
We have version at api(put, get etc) level https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Message+Structure+and+Definition#MessageStructureandDefinition-RequestHeader.
The client will connect to gemfire server by sending the "byte". That can be treated for message
serialization.

      From: Michael Stolz <mstolz@pivotal.io>
 To: dev@geode.apache.org 
Cc: Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlmeyer@pivotal.io>
 Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 8:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [gemfire-dev] New Client-Server Protocol Proposal
   
I'm not seeing any mention of versioning of the serialization protocol.
Versioning is critical to be able to support change over time. We must
version each layer of serialization. The transport message needs versions,
the payload serialization needs versions.

--
Mike Stolz
Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager
Mobile: +1-631-835-4771

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarrett@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I agree completely with Dan. There is no reason to have flags for value
> encoding type in the message. I would argue that should be part of the
> value serialization layer. If something was placed in the message layer it
> should be more generic and allow for an unrestricted set of encodings by
> some ID.
>
> Object {
> variant ID codec;
> byte[] payload;
> }
>
>
> -Jake
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 2, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > I guess the value of building other messages on top of the function
> service
> > mostly comes into play when we start talking about smarter clients that
> can
> > do single hop. At that point it's really nice to have have a layer that
> > lets us send a message to a single primary, or all of the members that
> host
> > a region etc. It is also nice that right now if I add new function that
> > functionality becomes available to gfsh, REST, Java, and C++ developers
> > automatically.
> >
> > I do agree that the new protocol could build in these concepts, and
> doesn't
> > necessarily have to use function execution to achieve the same results.
> But
> > do at least consider whether new developers will want to add new
> > functionality to the server via functions or via your this new protocol.
> If
> > it's harder to use the new protocol than to write a new function and
> invoke
> > it from the client, then I think we've done something wrong.
> >
> >
> > A couple of other comments, now that I've looked a little more:
> >
> > 1) The list of error codes
> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/RegionAPI#RegionAPI-
> ErrorCodeDefinitions>
> > seems really incomplete. It looks like we've picked a few of the possible
> > exceptions geode could throw and assigned them integer ids? What is the
> > rational for the exceptions that are included here vs. other exceptions?
> > Also, not all messages would need to return these error codes.
> >
> > 2) The existing protocol has some functionality even for basic puts that
> is
> > not represented here. Client generate an event id that is associated with
> > the put and send that to the server. These event ids are used to
> guarantee
> > that if a client does put (A, 0) followed by put (A, 1), the resulting
> > value will always be 1, even if the client timed out and retried put (A,
> > 0). The event id prevents the lingered put that timed out on the server
> > from affecting the state. I'm not saying the new protocol has to support
> > this sort of behavior, but you might want to consider whether the current
> > protocol should specify anything about how events are retried.
> >
> > -Dan
>


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