[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-582?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13623905#comment-13623905
]
Sijie Guo commented on BOOKKEEPER-582:
--------------------------------------
looks like in this case, there are two different proposals on protobuf
definitions in the community. putting tech debates aside, I am interested in
how to consolidate the proposals or how we should progress on protocol changes
in future for the community, since protocol change is not a trivial thing for
all the users using BOOKKEEPER project. I had no idea how it works in other
apache projects. In the past, I thought that creating a jira could raise the
discussion or at least it could prevent duplicated works (that is why I created
BOOKKEEPER-558).
> Make bookie and client use protobuf for requests (non-wire part)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-582
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-582
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Ivan Kelly
> Assignee: Ivan Kelly
> Fix For: 4.3.0
>
> Attachments:
> 0002-BOOKKEEPER-582-Make-bookie-and-client-use-protobuf-f.patch,
> 0002-BOOKKEEPER-582-Make-bookie-and-client-use-protobuf-f.patch,
> 0002-BOOKKEEPER-582-Make-bookie-and-client-use-protobuf-f.patch,
> 0003-BOOKKEEPER-582-Make-bookie-and-client-use-protobuf-f.patch
>
>
> Make the client and the bookie use protobufs internally. This is the first
> step to using protobufs on the wire, but for the moment, BookieRequestHandler
> decodes the old wire protocol into the protobuf messages. Once this is in,
> enabling on the wire will be very simple, and the old manual serialization
> can be made "legacy" (still supported, but deprecated).
--
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
