[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9630?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13686200#comment-13686200
]
Luke Lu commented on HADOOP-9630:
---------------------------------
For RPC v9, it's not likely have reasonable support of different serialization
types for rpc headers and sasl exchange, we might as well stop pretending that
it's possible. The main drive for this jira and the parent is to make the
protocol consistent and simple so that alternative clients in different
languages can be implemented and maintained with minimal cognitive overhead.
It's doubtful that we'll ever need an alternative rpc header/sasl serialization
type when the actual rpc serialization can be different via different rpc
engines. If there is a real need for different serialization type for rpc
header/sasl in the future, we can bring it back in future major versions of
rpc. I sure hope that RPC v9 would be the last major RPC version, as people are
banking on supporting backward-compatibility/rolling upgrade via the protobuf
support.
OTOH, I'm definitely interested in hearing about any actual plans to support
different serialization types for rpc header/sasl exchanges and related the use
cases.
> Remove IpcSerializationType
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-9630
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9630
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: ipc
> Reporter: Luke Lu
> Assignee: Junping Du
> Labels: rpc
> Fix For: 2.1.0-beta
>
> Attachments: HADOOP-9630.patch
>
>
> IpcSerializationType is assumed to be protobuf for the forseeable future. Not
> to be confused with RpcKind which still supports different RpcEngines. Let's
> remove the dead code, which can be confusing to maintain.
--
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
