Re: Visio - There are no "endpoint" implementations that allow for bi-directional communication over a single transport connection today. Is that the Visio you were referring to? The only implementation of that concept is buried in the THRIFT-66 attachments, and only for C#, and it was done on a codebase about 8 years past...
With today's thrift code if you want either end to be a client (make requests) or a server (reply to requests) you would need to separately instantiate a client or server on each end and have them connect to each-other, i.e. A ---> B (A sends requests to a thrift server on B, B replies, on a transport) A <--- B (B sends requests to a thrift server on A, A replies, on a transport separate from the last one) It sounds like what you'd like to get to is: A <--> B (A and B can function as a client or as a server over the same transport) Thrift cannot do the latter today, so I would recommend the former, using one transport for each direction. Given they will both be on the same system, if your languages support it, unix domain sockets are quite fast. Otherwise if you want a shared memory solution you need to write your own transport for that. - Jim On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM John Dougrez-Lewis <jle...@lightblue.com> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > The "oneway" route looks a bit fragile in the face of failures in the > subsequent server-side processing which then cannot be signalled back to the > client. > > The 2-way connection would be the way forward for me, particularly since it > would work with across multiple languages. > > My primary use case would be a simple language bridge mechanism for a library > to allow processes coded in one language to call, with potentially > asynchronously returns, and pub/sub, to another process hosting a library > coded in another language running (in the first instance) on the same box, > communicating via IPC, preferably fast shared memory, but failing that > sockets would do. > > You put a Visio diagram up back in 2010. Is the underlying source code for > that available now ? > > Rather than hand-rolling the 2-way connection setup/teardown and supporting > code, for each and every language each time, it would be nice if Framework > code for that could be generated automatically from an enhanced and extended > version of the IDL. > > Regards, > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: James E. King III [mailto:jk...@apache.org] > Sent: 15 May 2019 12:05 > To: dev@thrift.apache.org; jle...@lightblue.com > Subject: Re: THRIFT-66 - Bidirectional communication > > Hello! > > Thrift is still a dedicated client/server model environment where clients can > request and servers reply. The easiest way to make it 2-way today is to open > a connection both ways. If you don't have firewalls in the way then you can > do this effectively. The more difficult and more correct way to do it would > be to rewrite the transport layer to use endpoints in which each side can be > a client and/or server for any number of services (using TMultiplexedProtocol > on top of another protocol, like TBinaryProtocol). This design allows one > end to be a "listener", one end to be an "initiator" (starts the connection), > and after they connect they are equal peers with the ability to request or > reply of each-other. > > You can approximate asynchronous behavior by exclusively using "oneway" > requests in your design. I'd suggest avoiding use of oneway requests with > THttpProtocol varieties however as today there are some issues, since Http > transport requires a response to be sent, and "oneway" dictates there is no > reply, and most languages do not handle it well right now (there are open > backlog issues for this). > > For a matrix of supported languages, protocols, transports, and server types, > see the file LANGUAGES.md at the root of the github repository. > > Another idea I was toying with a while ago was to add a message bus transport > to Thrift which would allow for things like reliable delivery and broadcast > semantics but that also does not exist today. > > - Jim > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:05 AM John Dougrez-Lewis <jle...@lightblue.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I was looking for a mechanism to be able to provide language-agnostic > > API support to a hobby project I've been working on for some time. > > > > > > > > By following a trail of papers, books and references, I eventually > > came across Apache Thrift and have found and started going through > > Randy Abernethy's new book. > > > > > > > > > > > > Essentially what I was looking for was support for asynchronous calls, > > and by extension, pub/sub and two way communication across and between > > multiple languages over some channel, preferably IPC but in the worst case > > sockets. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having read the book, I can see that there is support for basic > > synchronous RPC between a client and a server over a significant > > number of languages and for just a very few languages, such as java, > > some element of support for asynchronous callbacks, and otherwise > > one-way methods that do not provide indication of subsequent failure. > > > > > > > > It appeared to me one way of extending bi-directional asynchronous > > support would be to have the client to set itself up as a server for > > the server at the other end to connect to, and then it would just be a > > question of choreographing the setting up of a pair of RPC channels. > > > > > > > > An asynchronous call could be implemented by providing a synchronous > > method that simply immediately returns a handle to the caller, and the > > server would then continue to process the call request on a background > > threadpool thread on the server, and the async result would then be > > signalled by a call from the server back to the client on the 2nd > > channel with the handle providing a context to lookup the result. > > > > > > > > Pub/sub would just then be multiple calls from the server back to the > > client. > > > > > > > > The whole thing could sit on top of the existing unidirectional RPC > > implementation and provide full asynchronous calls & pub/sub across > > *ALL* supported languages at probably very little additional effort, > > with no changes to the existing code. > > > > > > > > You could then have a framework that extended the existing IDL to > > include decoration with attributes for async & pub/sub methods & in/out > > parameters. > > > > > > > > This extended IDL could then be pre-processed to generate > > client-server and server-client service definitions in the existing > > base IDL language, together with generating supporting glue code to > > compile to provide the support for hooking up the channels between each > > side. > > > > > > > > I note that THRIFT-66 was raised 10 years ago, but it looks like the > > C# code was never made available for release by Dell. > > > > > > > > I have some questions: > > > > > > > > 1) What is the current state of plans for this supporting this sort of > > functionality? What issues have been encountered ? > > > > > > > > 2) Is there a document/spreadsheet somewhere showing a matrix of what > > Transports and Protocols are supported for each language? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
