[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-582?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14017194#comment-14017194
]
Flavio Junqueira commented on BOOKKEEPER-582:
---------------------------------------------
I have made a pass to the comments in the review board. It is dense, so I'm not
sure I'm getting the key points. My understanding is that the main source of
contention is the use of enums. Ivan's point is that if we update an enum and
update bookies before clients, then we risk breaking clients if we are not
careful. Being careful may imply code complexity.
Is this the main issue or is there something else? [~hustlmsp], could you
please summarize your view here? It would help me understand the discussion
better and possibly enable meaningful suggestions.
> 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
> Components: bookkeeper-client, bookkeeper-server
> Reporter: Ivan Kelly
> Assignee: Aniruddha
> 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,
> BOOKKEEPER-582.diff, BOOKKEEPER-582.v2.diff, BOOKKEEPER-582.v3.diff
>
>
> 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 was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
