FUSE support is tracked by the following JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-25
a patch is attached to the JIRA containing the feature. It's a big(ger)
set of code so I've given it time for review. Should be committed soon
and will be part of 3.0.
I started working on script support just before we got accepted to
Apache, which put that onto the back burner for a bit. We have a design
and I implemented a very basic prototype using SWIG that supports
perl/python/ruby/php/tcl. I'll be picking scripting support up again
once the Apache migration is mostly complete.
Patrick
Benjamin Reed wrote:
Hi Chris,
We have talked about using Thrift for our serialization layer (I thought
we had a Jira opened for it, but I cannot find it). Thrift RPC is a
different story. You would lose watch callbacks. I think it would also
be hard to support sessions and thus ephemeral nodes. Finally, your
client and server throughput would be quite low since clients wouldn't
be able to pipeline requests (it appears you can only have one request
outstanding at a time) and servers have to dedicate a thread to service
a request.
ZooKeeper clients are more than simple RPC dispatchers they also do
session maintenance and completion processing, so you need something a
bit more sophisticated at the client.
I assume you want this to get bindings for other languages. We have SWIG
and FUSE bindings for this.
If you really want thrift, I think there is a combo solution: implement
a standalone service, thrift server and zk client, and run it on each
ZooKeeper server.
ben
Chris Smith wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently thinking about implementing a Thrift interface for
ZooKeeper, and wanted to get some opinions on it before I start. I can
basically see two possible ways to implement it:
* A standalone service which implements both a ZooKeeper client and a
Thrift server, and basically acts as a proxy between the two
* Integrate the Thrift server with the ZooKeeper server, so that ZK
servers themselves handle the Thrift connections
I think the former is probably nicer from a development stand-point,
but the latter seems better from an end-user stand-point. Has anyone
else thought about doing this (or actually done it!), and does anyone
have any preferences/comments with regard to the above options?
Cheers,
Chris Smith
