Thank you, Ted, Junping, that's very helpful!
2013/1/9 Jun Ping Du <[email protected]> > There are several important metrics in choosing a RPC framework, include: > performance, multi-language support, version compatibility, usability and > product maturity. > PB almost plays well in all aspects, so I think that may be the reason why > community choose it. > > Thanks, > > Junping > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Dunning" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 3:27:36 PM > Subject: Re: Question about protocol buffer RPC > > Avro and Thrift both work well for RPC implementations. > > I have lately been using protobufs with protobuf-rpc-pro and have been very > happy with it. It has much of the debuggability of Thrift, but with > protobufs. > > See http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc-pro/ > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Hangjun Ye <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Our project is facing similar problem: choosing a PRC framework. > > So I want to know if there are any drawbacks in Avro/Thrift and then > Hadoop > > doesn't use them. > > > > Would appreciate if any insights could be shared for this! > > > > > > 2013/1/9 Hangjun Ye <[email protected]> > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > Looks Hadoop is using Google's protocol buffer for its RPC (correct me > if > > > I'm wrong). > > > > > > Avro/Thrift do the same thing, support more language, and have a > complete > > > PRC implementation. Seems Google's protocol buffer PRC only has a > > framework > > > but doesn't include implementation with a concrete network framework. > > > > > > So just curious the rationale behind this? > > > > > > -- > > > Hangjun Ye > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Hangjun Ye > > > -- Hangjun Ye
