[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13550851#comment-13550851
]
stack commented on HBASE-7533:
------------------------------
Chatting with [~eclark], a "downside" to the above scheme is the need in
protobuf to list every ipc method in the UnionResponseType enum and also in the
UnionRequestType. It seems a bit much given we can extrapolate param type and
return given the method name (whether we are doing reflection against
'protocol' Interfaces or lookups in pb Service). Elliott suggested we could
have opaque bytes for the request and response Message. This would mean
unmarshal the RpcResponse, then unmarshal the contained bytes to find the
Response Message. This would be a bit of a pain. Where we left it was
prototyping out both; that would be probably more informative than
prognosticating in front of a white board. I'll have a go at it.
Hey [~eclark], is there a response type missing from your enum example list
above? The error type?
> Write an RPC Specification for 0.96
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-7533
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7533
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: stack
> Fix For: 0.96.0
>
>
> RPC format is changing for 0.96 to accomodate our protobufing all around.
> Here is a first cut. Please shred:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-1RJMLXzYldmHgKP7M7ynK6euRpucD03fZ603DlZfGI/edit
--
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
