Khurrum, As far as I know, the protobuf package was shaded in bookkeeper. there will no backward compatible. At this point, I am not interested in bumping bc's protobuf, especially the bk version is still twitter's branch.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Khurrum Nasim <khurrumnas...@gmail.com> wrote: > one question - bk is using protobuf 2.x while gRPC is using 3.x. IMO, they > are not backward compatible. Are you also considering moving bk's protobuf > to 3.x? > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Gerrit Sundaram <gerritsunda...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > for the comment in > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/99, I am > starting > > this email thread for discussing using protobuf to store metadata for > ease > > extension. > > > > I have a few reasons for using protobuf rather than using thrift: > > > > - bookkeeper is using protobuf for storing metadata. so there is no extra > > dependency. and it will make things consistent. > > - the thrift version that DL is using now is 0.5.0-1, which is an > > out-of-date thrift version and seems to be a special version that Twitter > > customized for finagle. it makes me impossible to build a c++ client to > > access DL. > > - using protobuf, I can easily write a gRPC request handler for current > > proxy service to support c++. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > - Sijie > > >
