en, I hope we can reach a consistent solution. I prefer the behavior of the solution is the same as Avro Server/Transceiver pair because they are used now in the release package. The same behavior to the API customers is important. If the Server/Transceiver design is not good enough, we guys should improve all the related classes later. How do you think about it?
- harry On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:58 AM, James Todd <[email protected]> wrote: > saw that. i will dive in. > > i am curious as to your thoughts regarding my response. i think the > differences are 1) philosophical [eg simple external api as a principal > objective] and 2) tactical [eg internal implementation details]. > > optimally, we can collectively meld the ideas for an overall improved > solution. > > there is still outstanding work regarding the responder delegation work > that > is assumed to be follow on work for patch i provided. > > thoughts? > > - james > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:46 AM, harry wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > hi, I just attached my implementation patch as another choice for trial > at > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-405. :) > > Maybe we could get a better result in the end. > > > > regards > > > > - harry > > > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:24 AM, James Todd <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > hey harry - > > > > > > glad to hear there is functional parity :) > > > > > > it will be good to get this initial issue in one way or another. > > > > > > i opted to leverage the netty internals to manage/contain the discreet > > > steps > > > in the pipeline but admittedly they are trivial and can in all > likelihood > > > be > > > rolled up. i am keen on implementing bruce's proposed protocol and > > perhaps > > > this objective led me to this design. regardless it is solely internal > > and > > > up for refactoring. > > > > > > there is one significant TODO in the patch i provided which is to > > > internally > > > determine the relevant responder by inspecting the handshake data and > > > delegating accordingly. that is work that is assumed > > > to go along with this patch and work worth doing imo, as the data is > all > > > available and it streamlines/simplifies the external api. > > > > > > to summarize, error on the side of simplest possible external api > (noting > > > the afore mentioned responder delegation work) and allow for (possibly > > > speculative) implementation variability for the internal details. > > > > > > i also didn't necessarily strive to align w/ other implementations > > > (ie SocketTransceiver/SocketServer or HttpTransceiver/HttpServer) as i > > > didn't see that as significantly advantageous to do so. guess i could > be > > > wrong. > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > best, > > > > > > - james > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:23 AM, harry wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi james, after studying your works, I find that our basic idea is > > alike > > > > but > > > > our implementation is a little different. It appears my design is > > simpler > > > > than yours. The following is the comparison: > > > > > > > > 1, my design only has 4 files: NettyFrameDecoder.java, > > > > NettyFrameEncoder.java, NettyServer.java and NettyTransceiver.java, > in > > > > which > > > > Encoder/Decoder classes transform data structure between > > List<ByteBuffer> > > > > (need by Responder) and ChannelBuffer (need by Netty), Server class > as > > a > > > > server and Transceiver as a client. The design is more similar with > > > > SocketServer and SocketTransceiver, so does the usage. i.e. > > > > > > > > // server > > > > Responder responder = new SpecificResponder(Mail.class, new > > > > MailImpl()); > > > > Server server = new NettyServer(responder, new > > > > InetSocketAddress(0)); > > > > Thread.sleep(1000); // waiting for server startup > > > > > > > > // client > > > > int serverPort = server.getPort(); > > > > Transceiver transceiver = new NettyTransceiver(new > > > > InetSocketAddress(serverPort)); > > > > Mail proxy = (Mail)SpecificRequestor.getClient(Mail.class, > > > > transceiver); > > > > > > > > Message msg = new Message(); > > > > msg.to = new Utf8("wife"); > > > > msg.from = new Utf8("husband"); > > > > msg.body = new Utf8("I love you!"); > > > > > > > > try { > > > > Utf8 result = proxy.send(msg); > > > > System.out.println("Result: " + result); > > > > } finally { > > > > transceiver.close(); > > > > server.close(); > > > > } > > > > > > > > 2, your design has about 10 files because you use more handlers in > the > > > > pipeline and more top level classes such as client/server > > > PipelineFactory. > > > > The biggest difference is that your client and server class design is > > not > > > > similar with SocketTransceiver/SocketServer or > > HttpTransceiver/HttpServer > > > > pair. And the usage method is : > > > > > > > > // server > > > > netSocketAddress address = new InetSocketAddress(port); > > > > AvroServer server = new AvroServer(address); // where is the > > > > Responder instance ? > > > > > > > > // client > > > > InetSocketAddress address = new InetSocketAddress(port); > > > > AvroClient client = new AvroClient(address); > > > > Message message = createMessage(to, from, body); > > > > String response = client.dispatch(message); // not use the > Proxy > > > > pattern > > > > System.out.println("response: " + response); > > > > client.dispose(); > > > > > > > > In your design there is a problem that you create a specific > Responder > > > > instance using specific protocol in AvroServerHandler which could not > > be > > > > reused in other circumstances. > > > > > > > > So, I think my design is more close to the Avro's way. How do you > think > > > > about it? and anyone else? > > > > > > > > - harry > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, James Todd <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > the latest/greatest patch against AVRO-405 is: > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12441447/AVRO-405.patch > > > > > > > > > > it's a merge of bo shin's and my work. > > > > > > > > > > there is more to do here, should be summarized in the comments > iirc, > > > but > > > > it > > > > > would be great to get this initial spike done and build > > > > > on from that point. > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > > > > > - james > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:04 PM, harry wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > OK. But it seems that someone else has already made a netty-rpc > > > patch. > > > > I > > > > > > would like to see if my work could be merged into it. > > > > > > > > > > > > - harry > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Doug Cutting < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would make a great contribution! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please attach it as a patch to an issue in Jira? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/24/2010 11:29 AM, harry wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hi, I have implemented the Avro RPC Server and Transceiver > using > > > > > Netty. > > > > > > If > > > > > > >> anyone is interested in it, you can look at > > > > > > >> http://github.com/coolwhy/avro-rpc-on-netty. Any suggestion > is > > > > > welcome. > > > > > > >> Thanks! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> - harry > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
