ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Thin client protocol message format
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2017 07:50:38 GMT

Yes, explicit protocol versioning already used in ODBC/JDBC. Looks like we
should continue this practice in this protocol as well.

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org> wrote:

> Here are my observations.
> 1. Let's create wiki page where we will keep the protocol definition and
> reflect all the changes.
> 2. I would put op_code to the first place. This will make possible to
> eliminate length field for many messages. Look at your handshake request -
> it is always of fixed length. Why do we need length then? Variable length
> operations - puts, putalls, getalls, etc will definitely need length field
> (or keys count and length of each key separately in each binary object -
> let's discuss it later).
> 3. I would also add build date and revision hash to handshake. Same as we
> do for Ignite.
> 4. I would like to have explicit protocol version for client to make
> possible for newer clients to work with older servers. Moreover, I think
> there may be some third party protocol implementations on other platforms
> which may not be driven by Ignite community and their versioning may be
> different. So, explicit protocol version is really handy here.
> Thanks!
> --Yakov

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