[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Luke Lu updated HADOOP-8990:
----------------------------
Description:
There are a few inconsistencies in the current RPC protocol that make new
client implementation (especially non-blocking) unnecessarily hard. For example:
# proto file naming
RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeaderProto, but also
RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename
"hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
# proto class naming
In rpc request RpcPayloadHeaderProto includes callId, but in rpc response
callId is included in RpcResponseHeaderProto, and there is also
HadoopRpcRequestProto, this is just too confusing.
# The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
RpcRequestWritable, RpcResponseWritable, rpc response exception name, stack
trace string and sasl request/response.
RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but RpcResponseWritable
uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and
response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message. Wrapping request
and response into single RequestProto and ResponseProto would be better, since
this gives a formal complete wire format definition.
These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use these
rpc interfaces.
was:
There are a few inconsistencies in the current RPC protocol that makes new
client implementation (especially non-blocking) unnecessarily hard. For example:
# proto file naming
RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeaderProto, but also
RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename
"hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
# proto class naming
In rpc request RpcPayloadHeaderProto includes callId, but in rpc response
callId is included in RpcResponseHeaderProto, and there is also
HadoopRpcRequestProto, this is just too confusing.
# The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
RpcRequestWritable, RpcResponseWritable, rpc response exception name, stack
trace string and sasl request/response.
RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but RpcResponseWritable
uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and
response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message. Wrapping request
and response into single RequestProto and ResponseProto would be better, since
this gives a formal complete wire format definition.
These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use these
rpc interfaces.
> Clean up RPC protocol for consistency
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-8990
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8990
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Binglin Chang
> Assignee: Sanjay Radia
>
> There are a few inconsistencies in the current RPC protocol that make new
> client implementation (especially non-blocking) unnecessarily hard. For
> example:
> # proto file naming
> RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeaderProto, but also
> RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
> hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename
> "hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
> How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
> # proto class naming
> In rpc request RpcPayloadHeaderProto includes callId, but in rpc response
> callId is included in RpcResponseHeaderProto, and there is also
> HadoopRpcRequestProto, this is just too confusing.
> # The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
> RpcRequestWritable, RpcResponseWritable, rpc response exception name, stack
> trace string and sasl request/response.
> RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but
> RpcResponseWritable uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
> Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and
> response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message. Wrapping request
> and response into single RequestProto and ResponseProto would be better,
> since this gives a formal complete wire format definition.
> These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use
> these rpc interfaces.
--
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
