[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13559006#comment-13559006
]
Sanjay Radia commented on HADOOP-8990:
--------------------------------------
bq. The final wire format would be(I assume prefix is unified to 4 byte
integer):
Yes except that on first len is 4bytes and the *rest are varint*. Note that
since rpc has pluggable rpc engine, the rpc request itself is serialized based
on the pluggable rpc engine. For protobuf-rpc-engine the length is serialized
as varint.
The individual lengths works well with the layering in the system. Wrt layering
I mean *both* within the ipc/rpc layers and also the fact that we allow
multiple rpc engines.
> Some minor issus in protobuf based ipc
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-8990
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8990
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Binglin Chang
> Priority: Minor
>
> 1. proto file naming
> RpcPayloadHeader.proto include not only RpcPayLoadHeaderProto, but also
> RpcResponseHeaderProto, which is irrelevant to the file name.
> hadoop_rpc.proto only include HadoopRpcRequestProto, and the filename
> "hadoop_rpc" is strange comparing to other .proto file names.
> How about merge those two file into HadoopRpc.proto?
> 2. proto class naming
> In rpc request RpcPayloadHeaderProto includes callId, but in rpc response
> callId is included in RpcResponseHeaderProto, and there is also
> HadoopRpcRequestProto, this is just too confusing.
> 3. The rpc system is not fully protobuf based, there are still some Writables:
> RpcRequestWritable and RpcResponseWritable.
> rpc response exception name and stack trace string.
> And RpcRequestWritable uses protobuf style varint32 prefix, but
> RpcResponseWritable uses int32 prefix, why this inconsistency?
> Currently rpc request is splitted into length, PayLoadHeader and PayLoad, and
> response into RpcResponseHeader, response and error message.
> I think wrap request and response into single RequstProto and ResponseProto
> is better, cause this gives a formal complete wire format definition,
> or developer need to look into the source code and hard coding the
> communication format.
> These issues above make it very confusing and hard for developers to use
> these rpc interfaces.
> Some of these issues can be solved without breaking compatibility, but some
> can not, but at least we need to know what will be changed and what will stay
> stable?
--
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
