Didn't know Avro RPC could maintain a persistent connection. Would you mind elaborating on your use case?
On May 29, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Connor Doyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Avro RPC can be _dramatically_ more compact, especially when used over a > persistent connection. We use binary avro RPC over a WebSocket connection. > The overhead for each request is a tiny blob of metadata and the message > name. This compares very favorably with a full set of HTTP headers for each > message. Another advantage we see is that with a persistent connection we > can handle responses asynchronously; quickly serviced requests don't have to > wait for slow ones. It all depends on the details of your use case, however. > -- > Connor > > On May 29, 2013, at 11:30, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Very basic question but could one explain why one would choose Avro RPC over >> something like a simple restful service over HTTP? >> >> The only thing I can think of is it adds a little more structure to the >> request/response and slightly more compact. Other than that, I'm drawing a >> blank. As far as the response goes though, couldn't you simply return an >> Avro message from a restful http service and have the client parse it if you >> wanted more structure? >> >> Thanks for the clarification >> >> -M
