tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hyunsik Choi <hyun...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Portable remote client APIs
Date Tue, 17 Mar 2015 05:32:28 GMT
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
View raw message