tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jihun Kang <ykr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Portable remote client APIs
Date Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:25:30 GMT
Hello All,

TAJO REST API design page was created in TAJO wiki page. Please feel free
to give any comments on this design. You can find details in following link.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAJO/TAJO+REST+API

2015-03-17 15:13 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:

> Hi CharSyam,
>
> Thank you for suggestion. Yes, the REST api will be updated. Please
> see the attach file at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAJO-1331. Jihun already wrote
> the first draft of REST API.
>
> Best regards,
> Hyunsik
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:59 PM, CharSyam <charsyam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes :) But I think we need good docs for REST api also for client
> > developers.
> >
> > 2015-03-17 14:32 GMT+09:00 Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org>:
> >
> >> According to the vote results, let's focus on REST for remote API.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Hyunsik
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Jaehwa Jung <blrunner@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > This discussion started to avoid duplicated efforts.
> >> > IMPOV, if we choice both of REST and Thrift, it may be complex to
> >> maintain
> >> > Tajo codes.
> >> >
> >> > 2015-03-13 15:28 GMT+09:00 정유선(JUNG YOUSUN) <jerryjung@sk.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Yep! I just think both can support multiple language client.
> >> >> As you mentioned, it is not critical issues about performance in
> Thrift.
> >> >> Anyway, I think it's a good discussion about the remote interface on
> >> Tajo.
> >> >> :)
> >> >>
> >> >> Sincerely,
> >> >> Yousun Jeong
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Hyunsik Choi [mailto:hyunsik@apache.org]
> >> >> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 2:59 PM
> >> >> To: dev@tajo.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Portable remote client APIs
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Jerry,
> >> >>
> >> >> How much faster and lightweight than REST? Luckily, Thrift may be
> faster
> >> >> 1~2 msec than REST per call.
> >> >>
> >> >> But, note that Tajo is an analytical system. The target response
> times
> >> of
> >> >> Tajo are usually from few seconds to hours. So, the speed which come
> >> from
> >> >> wired protocol is much trivial to the purpose of our client APIs.
> >> >>
> >> >> The link you introduce is about Hbase. As you know, Hbase is
> OLTP-like
> >> >> system. It processes thousands of transactions per seconds. So, the
> >> speed
> >> >> and lightweight are important to them. But, Tajo is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I mentioned, REST API is very portable and has no dependencies in
> >> many
> >> >> languages. I think that these are the most important factors of our
> >> client
> >> >> APIs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> Hyunsik
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:33 PM, 정유선 <jerryjung@sk.com>
wrote:
> >> >> > I suggest another option.
> >> >> > What do you think about two options for remote interface?
> >> >> > Thrift is the faster and more lightweight than REST.
> >> >> > Please refer this article.
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >
> >> http://blog.cloudera.com/blog/2013/03/how-to-use-the-apache-hbase-rest
> >> >> > -interface-part-1/ It describes various ways to access and interact
> >> >> > with HBase.
> >> >> > Both of them, giving developers a wide choice of languages and
> >> programs
> >> >> to use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> > Yousun Jeong.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > From: Hyunsik Choi [mailto:hyunsik@apache.org]
> >> >> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:34 AM
> >> >> > To: dev@tajo.apache.org
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Portable remote client APIs
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We seem to get a consent to use REST API. I'll wait for one more
> day,
> >> >> and then we can decide this issue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> > Hyunsik
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Hyoungjun Kim <babokim@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I give +1 to REST API.
> >> >> >> I think REST is more common.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Warm regards,
> >> >> >> Hyoungjun
> >> >> >> 2015. 3. 12. 오후 10:41에 "Jihun Kang" <ykrips@gmail.com>님이
작성:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Hello All,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I would give +1 to REST API Implementation. Even Protobuf
and
> Thrift
> >> >> >>> give flexibility and extensibility to programmers, but
entry
> >> >> >>> barriers for these frameworks are extremely high. Also,
if we
> want
> >> >> >>> to make another client implementation for other programming
> >> >> >>> languages, we need to figure out that these framework
have code
> >> >> generator feature for that programming language.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> 2015-03-12 20:18 GMT+09:00 Jaehwa Jung <blrunner@apache.org>:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > Hi guys
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > +1 for Hyunsik's suggestion.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > REST API may be more efficient for code maintenance
and various
> >> >> >>> > clients implementation.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Cheers
> >> >> >>> > Jaehwa
> >> >> >>> >  +1 RESTful API for code maintenance
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > -Jinho
> >> >> >>> > Best regards
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > 2015-03-12 17:56 GMT+09:00 CharSyam <charsyam@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > > +1
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > I also agree with hyunsik's suggesttion.
> >> >> >>> > > I think it is better to make language binding
to use Rest
> API.
> >> >> >>> > > It will be more efficient and less effort :)
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > 2015-03-12 17:38 GMT+09:00 Jihoon Son <jihoonson@apache.org
> >:
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > > +1 for Hyunsik's suggestion.
> >> >> >>> > > > I totally agree with you.
> >> >> >>> > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > Warm regards,
> >> >> >>> > > > Jihoon
> >> >> >>> > > > 2015년 3월 12일 (목) 오후 5:35, Hyunsik
Choi <hyunsik@apache.org
> >님이
> >> >> 작성:
> >> >> >>> > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > Here is my suggestion.
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > I prefer REST API. I think that it
would be better than
> >> >> >>> > > > > other due
> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >>> > > > > the following reasons:
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > >  * No dependency - most of script
languages do not need
> any
> >> >> >>> > dependency
> >> >> >>> > > > > for this approach. Also, C and C++
just needs json
> library
> >> >> >>> > > > > for this approach. Please look at
JSON for Modern C++
> >> >> >>> > > > > (https://github.com/nlohmann/json).
It just requires to
> >> >> >>> > > > > include
> >> >> >>> one
> >> >> >>> > > > > header and one source file. As a result,
there is no
> >> >> >>> > > > > dependency problem.
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > >  * Portability - most of script languages
basically
> support
> >> >> >>> > > > > REST
> >> >> >>> and
> >> >> >>> > > > > JSON. They don't need client implementation.
They can
> just
> >> >> >>> > > > > use REST and JSON features in order
to access Tajo. If
> >> >> >>> > > > > necessary, we can
> >> >> >>> make
> >> >> >>> > > > > easily some helper libraries for other
languages.
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > >  * Secure - It is easy to provide
the secure channel and
> >> >> >>> > > > > authentication method too. Basically,
many HTTP API
> provides
> >> >> >>> > > > > HTTP
> >> >> >>> > over
> >> >> >>> > > > > SSL.
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > Jihoon Kang already started REST API
work. If others
> start
> >> >> >>> > > > > to
> >> >> >>> develop
> >> >> >>> > > > > clients for other languages like C/C++
client over REST
> API
> >> >> >>> > > > > after
> >> >> >>> his
> >> >> >>> > > > > work, it would be best for us.
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> >>> > > > > Hyunsik
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Hyunsik
Choi
> >> >> >>> > > > > <hyunsik@apache.org>
> >> >> >>> > > > wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > > > > Hi folks,
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > Recently, there are three trials
to add new remote
> client
> >> >> APIs.
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > * C/C++ Client over Thrift -
> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >> >>> > > > > jira/browse/TAJO-1264
> >> >> >>> > > > > > * Add REST Client API -
> >> >> >>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAJO-1331
> >> >> >>> > > > > > * Tajo Python Native Client -
> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >> >>> > > > > jira/browse/TAJO-1367
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > In some aspect, I'm very happy
to discuss such an
> issue. I
> >> >> >>> haven't
> >> >> >>> > > > > > expected that we are discuss
and vote for duplicated
> >> efforts.
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > BTW, it would be great if we
do not spend our resource
> on
> >> >> >>> > duplicated
> >> >> >>> > > > > works.
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > In order to rearrange this duplicated
works, we need
> some
> >> >> >>> > discussion
> >> >> >>> > > > > > about their pros and cons. I
hope that we consent our
> >> >> >>> > > > > > direction
> >> >> >>> > after
> >> >> >>> > > > > > this discussion. Otherwise, we
can call for a vote for
> the
> >> >> >>> > approach.
> >> >> >>> > > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> >>> > > > > > Hyunsik
> >> >> >>> > > > >
> >> >> >>> > > >
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
>

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