reef-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Byung-Gon Chun <bgc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: gRPC based Java Bridge
Date Sun, 15 Apr 2018 23:24:23 GMT
Using gRPC makes sense. We have some experience on using gRPC in Nemo.
Nemo has a channel between Driver and Worker, which is based on Wake/Netty
and gRPC.
The Nemo team created an abstraction for the channel and implemented it
using two different libraries. They are interchangeable.

Cheers,
Gon


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Rogan Carr <rogan.carr@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Markus,
>
> In general, I like having fewer dependencies and smaller codebases, so if
> we were to adopt gRPC for the bridge, I'd be in favor of using it in Wake
> as well.
>
> Best,
> Rogan
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Markus Weimer <markus@weimo.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:53 AM, Byung-Gon Chun <bgchun@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Both Thrift and gRPC sound reasonable. Is there any reason to choose
> gRPC
> > > over Thrift?
> >
> > There seems to be a lot of momentum towards gRPC right now. It has
> > solid support for .NET, and uses HTTP2 as its transport layer. The
> > former is very interesting to us, the latter makes things much, much
> > easier on clusters: People like to use proxies and redirects and other
> > features of HTTP in their cluster operations.
> >
> > But this raises a broader question: As we take a dependency on gRPC,
> > we could eliminate a bunch of code in REEF, as it replaces both the
> > Avro and the Netty layers of Wake. WDYT about that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Markus
> >
>



-- 
Byung-Gon Chun

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