Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADkxbWnN-hSD8NpZh3_H=2XsutgErLgk46STExuEnLKT=TxWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADkxbWkNdOijEGD5yg93YHxDyc5bgThwqjwSNLvwT4kP679-3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADkxbWnN-hSD8NpZh3_H=2XsutgErLgk46STExuEnLKT=TxWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Dunning <tdunning@maprtech.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 23:27:36 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAND0qztgVZP3LXMW_2JQk39JAJZ6Y22p_DHD18KyXei+o25eZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question about protocol buffer RPC
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f31a4518e9804d2d60095

--20cf307f31a4518e9804d2d60095
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Avro and Thrift both work well for RPC implementations.

I have lately been using protobufs with protobuf-rpc-pro and have been very
happy with it.  It has much of the debuggability of Thrift, but with
protobufs.

See http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc-pro/


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Hangjun Ye <yehangjun@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our project is facing similar problem: choosing a PRC framework.
> So I want to know if there are any drawbacks in Avro/Thrift and then Hadoop
> doesn't use them.
>
> Would appreciate if any insights could be shared for this!
>
>
> 2013/1/9 Hangjun Ye <yehangjun@gmail.com>
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me if
> > I'm wrong).
> >
> > Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a complete
> > PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a
> framework
> > but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework.
> >
> > So just curious the rationale behind this?
> >
> > --
> > Hangjun Ye
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Hangjun Ye
>

--20cf307f31a4518e9804d2d60095--