hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HTTP transport?
Date Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:43:24 GMT
Sanjay Radia wrote:
> Wrt  connection pooling/async servers: Can't we use the same libraries 
> that Jetty and Tomcat use?
>  Grizzly?

Grizzly also supports HTTP.  Choosing Grizzly is independent of choosing 
HTTP as a wire transport or choosing a server.

The question I'm asking now is about the wire format, whether we wish to 
precede each RPC request with something like "GET 
/avro/org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.NameNode HTTP/1.1\n" and each response with 
"HTTP/1.1 200 OK\n", plus a couple of other headers in each case (e.g., 
Content-Type and Content-Length).  I think there are great benefits to 
using a single, standard protocol on the wire.  Which server and client 
implementations we use will be determined by performance, features, etc. 
  But using a standard wire format will greatly simplify things as we 
attempt to support multiple languages.  Since we want to provide browser 
access, we're compelled to support HTTP.  So the question is, are there 
compelling reasons why HTTP should not be used for other, non-browser, 
access?

> Yes we are expecting to use encryption down the road.

Do we expect to use something different from TLS?  With its 'resume' 
feature, is TLS performance unacceptable?  Would we implement some other 
encryption protocol, or use a non-standards-based encryption protocol?

Doug

Mime
View raw message