Mailing-List: contact hadoop-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bryan@rapleaf.com designates
 208.96.16.213 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1;
 h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
 b=ERzrNJemzftoRvcMOGDoERvVPoxBawRh5n9vKjA+JI/rd14wxm72Smy/ch57+WsWeoT8pnipbfU40BH/2QxZiS4QGwezh2hdiHQWcRENFoMJny3HgHDMgKrixzjywi+MSzsYj/Uzzt1Yj6vcHzgWsJLUvZ6+f9Bt5wOoRmkwl7A=;
 c=nofws; d=rapleaf.com; q=dns; s=m1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-W28AC75E753E3804D148CB1C5690@phx.gbl>
References: <886BC992-360C-49CA-A6A6-35F946841A91@rapleaf.com>
 <C37F7D63.304F1%chad@powerset.com>
 <BAY140-W28AC75E753E3804D148CB1C5690@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <481DF4CC-542F-43FF-BED7-C97BCBAF74B9@rapleaf.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Bryan Duxbury <bryan@rapleaf.com>
Subject: Re: Talking to HBase via tcp/socket
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 09:43:54 -0800
To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org

Except, there is NO traditional interface for HBase. We have the =20
choice to build whatever interface we want.

I think the fundamental difference between Thrift/REST and an HQL =20
socket server would be the TYPE of the interface. Thrift/REST mostly =20
matches the existing underlying API (Thrift more so than REST), but =20
HQL requires us to develop and maintain a whole SQL-like syntax, and =20
to redefine our operations in terms of SQL, and figure out good ways =20
to manage bulk of data that can be returned, and it wouldn't even be =20
aligned with any known standard, so completely fresh client libraries =20=

for every language. It just seems like a lot more effort for what =20
results in a more complex interface than we get with our other efforts.

On Dec 8, 2007, at 3:36 AM, edward yoon wrote:

>
> My notebook have both USB port and PS/2 port.
> But, the maker didn't say PS/2 port is a unnecessary thing.
>
> Premature withdrawal of traditional interface will guarantee failure.
>
> Thanks,
> Edward.
> ------------------------------
> B. Regards,
>
> Edward yoon @ NHN, corp.
> Home : http://www.udanax.org
>
>> From: chad@powerset.com
>> To: hadoop-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:44:51 -0800
>> Subject: Re: Talking to HBase via tcp/socket
>>
>>
>> The heavy lifting in this exercise is mainly in designing the RPC =20
>> calls themselves - after that, it is probably a simple matter of =20
>> programming.
>>
>> Anyone want to take a crack at it?
>>
>> Chad
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/07 11:52 AM, "Bryan Duxbury"  wrote:
>>
>> There's nothing stopping us from creating REST "methods" for =20
>> creating/
>> deleting tables. That's mostly a question of whether or not we want
>> to expose the functionality elsewhere than the shell. You could
>> create a ticket for that and we can discuss it.
>>
>> I agree that XML can be heavy, which is why we are implementing the
>> ability to use the "Accept: multipart/related" header to get back the
>> data as pure binary with boundaries. This should alleviate the
>> overhead of using XML for the most part.
>>
>> Hey, I hardly know Java, and I'm hacking all sorts of stuff!
>> Seriously though, I think that as far as performant cross-platform
>> access goes, the future is a Thrift servlet. I don't have a timeline
>> on that at all yet.
>>
>> -Bryan
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Thiago Jackiw wrote:
>>
>>> The are a few reasons why I wanted to go with Socket instead of =20
>>> REST,
>>> to name a couple:
>>>
>>> - By applying Edward's patch I was able to gain access to the =20
>>> 'entire'
>>> HBase interface, from creating to deleting tables, etc, which I
>>> couldn't do with REST. Is this flexibility something sought for =20
>>> future
>>> development?
>>> - Performance gain. Working with xml can sometimes be problematic
>>> and 'heavy'.
>>>
>>>> I would suggest exploring building a Thrift servlet that mimics
>>>> the structure of the REST servlet
>>> That could work if I knew Java :P
>>>
>>> Anyhow, despite HBase being pretty new, it sure kicks ass. Kudos to
>>> you guys.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thiago
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2007 10:42 AM, Bryan Duxbury  wrote:
>>>> What's the motivation for using straight a straight TCP socket =20
>>>> rather
>>>> than REST? The motivation behind producing a REST interface in the
>>>> first place is that since the client still lives in Java, then =20
>>>> we get
>>>> to take advantage of all the built-in Java client work that's been
>>>> done. If you're looking for a more lightweight way to interact with
>>>> HBase (since REST can be a little heavy at times), then rather than
>>>> go the HQL route, I would suggest exploring building a Thrift =20
>>>> servlet
>>>> that mimics the structure of the REST servlet. This is something
>>>> that's been discussed as a next step for HBase interoperability.
>>>>
>>>> -Bryan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Thiago Jackiw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to interact with HBase via TCP/socket connection
>>>>> directly instead of just using the REST api?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the =20
> i=92m Initiative now.
> http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=3DTAGLM