[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-5124?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14273560#comment-14273560 ]
Shixiong Zhu commented on SPARK-5124: ------------------------------------- {quote} 1. Let's not rely on the property of local actor not passing messages through a socket for local actor speedup. Conceptually, there is no reason to tie local actor implementation to RPC. DAGScheduler's actor used to be a simple queue & event loop (before it was turned into an actor for no good reason). We can restore it to that. {quote} OK. I will change DAGScheduler actor to a simple event loop. {quote} 2. Have you thought about how the fate sharing stuff would work with alternative RPC implementations? {quote} Just want to make sure we are thinking the same thing: do you mean how to notify DisassociatedEvent in alternative RPC implementation? If so, I'm thinking how to extract it from the RPC layer. But have not yet started it. > Standardize internal RPC interface > ---------------------------------- > > Key: SPARK-5124 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-5124 > Project: Spark > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Spark Core > Reporter: Reynold Xin > Assignee: Shixiong Zhu > Attachments: Pluggable RPC - draft 1.pdf > > > In Spark we use Akka as the RPC layer. It would be great if we can > standardize the internal RPC interface to facilitate testing. This will also > provide the foundation to try other RPC implementations in the future. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org