[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-16192?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18105429#comment-18105429
]
Chia-Chuan Ho commented on HDDS-16192:
--------------------------------------
Hi [~szetszwo]
My understanding is that this issue aims to separate the internal Java
interfaces from the actual protobuf/Hadoop RPC protocols, without changing the
wire protocol. Could you please confirm: # Should the interfaces be
renamed/moved to internal service interfaces? Is there a preferred name and
package?
# Should the old *Protocol classes remain as RPC identity markers? Their FQCNs
are used by @ProtocolInfo, secure-mode authorization, and SCMPolicyProvider, so
removing them may affect compatibility.
# Should the existing methods, translators, and protobuf definitions otherwise
remain unchanged?
Thanks!
> Refactor o.a.h.hdds.scm.protocol
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: HDDS-16192
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-16192
> Project: Apache Ozone
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SCM
> Reporter: Tsz-wo Sze
> Priority: Major
>
> ||interface||protocol (gRPC service)||
> |StorageContainerLocationProtocol|StorageContainerLocationProtocolService|
> |ScmBlockLocationProtocol|ScmBlockLocationProtocolService|
> The above interfaces in package org.apache.hadoop.hdds.scm.protocol are just
> internal interfaces but not really protocols, in the sense that changing the
> signatures of the methods does NOT change the underlying protocols, where the
> underlying protocols are defined in the corresponding gRPC services.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
