Do I understand correctly that this is not a multiplexed protocol? Are we ok to have a separate connection for each thread? I would also add a requestId field to allow multiple concurrent requests at a time.
2017-08-02 10:50 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > Yakov, > > Yes, explicit protocol versioning already used in ODBC/JDBC. Looks like we > should continue this practice in this protocol as well. > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Here are my observations. > > > > 1. Let's create wiki page where we will keep the protocol definition and > > reflect all the changes. > > > > 2. I would put op_code to the first place. This will make possible to > > eliminate length field for many messages. Look at your handshake request > - > > it is always of fixed length. Why do we need length then? Variable length > > operations - puts, putalls, getalls, etc will definitely need length > field > > (or keys count and length of each key separately in each binary object - > > let's discuss it later). > > > > 3. I would also add build date and revision hash to handshake. Same as we > > do for Ignite. > > > > 4. I would like to have explicit protocol version for client to make > > possible for newer clients to work with older servers. Moreover, I think > > there may be some third party protocol implementations on other platforms > > which may not be driven by Ignite community and their versioning may be > > different. So, explicit protocol version is really handy here. > > > > Thanks! > > > > --Yakov > > >
