tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 정유선(JUNG YOUSUN) <jerryj...@sk.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSSION] Portable remote client APIs
Date Fri, 13 Mar 2015 06:28:06 GMT
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