[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-587?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13609255#comment-13609255
]
Sijie Guo commented on BOOKKEEPER-587:
--------------------------------------
FYI. here is the protobuf definitions for BOOKKEEPER-558:
https://github.com/twitter/bookkeeper/blob/master/bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto
.
[~ikelly]
{quote}
If you add another value to the enum, any old decoders will barf when they see
the new value. For this reason i've made the error code in responses an int,
not an enum.
{quote}
what is the difference behavior when an old decoder received a new enum and a
new integer? should the old decoder not reject the request in either case?
the pain for Hedwig is it doesn't handle this part very well. catching some
exception and responded to tell a bad request would resolve this issue, doesn't
it?
{quote}
I've kept the data part outside of protobufs. This avoids a memcpy in and out
of the protobuf bytestring.
{quote}
Could this be benchmarked? since keeping the data part outside of protobuf
indicating there are two different formats used in a request package (some use
protobuf, some use customized format). it seems violating the purpose we
introduced protobuf to make the protocol to extend easily.
> Make BK use protobufs on the wire
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-587
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-587
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Ivan Kelly
> Assignee: Ivan Kelly
> Fix For: 4.3.0
>
> Attachments:
> 0003-BOOKKEEPER-587-Make-BK-use-protobufs-on-the-wire.-Bu.patch
>
>
> Building on BOOKKEEPER-582, make bookkeeper use protobufs for on wire
> transmission.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
