Point taken … +1 for protobuf - from my POV we can close ISSUE-1
> The question of an internal wire format, btw, does not constrain the project
> relative to external access.
Sounds sensible.
The only one thing I really don't get is: why did you put Avro and JSON into
the proposal [1] in the first place? Or is this the 'external access' from
above?
Cheers,
Michael
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/DrillProposal
--
Michael Hausenblas
Ireland, Europe
http://mhausenblas.info/
On 14 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I think that it is important to ask a few questions leading up a decision
> here.
>
> The first is a (rhetorical) show of hands about how many people believe
> that there are no serious performance or expressivity killers when
> comparing alternative serialization frameworks. As far as I know,
> performance differences are not massive (and protobufs is one of the
> leaders in any case) and the expressivity differences are essentially nil.
> If somebody feels that there is a serious show-stopper with any option,
> they should speak.
>
> The second is to ask the sense of the community whether they judge progress
> or perfection in this decision is most important to the project. My guess
> is that almost everybody would prefer to see progress as long as the
> technical choice is not subject to some horrid missing bit.
>
> The final question is whether it is reasonable to go along with protobufs
> given that several very experienced engineers prefer it and would like to
> produce code based on it. If the first two answers are answered to the
> effect of protobufs is about as good as we will find and that progress
> trumps small differences, then it seems that moving to follow this
> preference of Jason and Ryan for protobufs might be a reasonable thing to
> do.
>
> The question of an internal wire format, btw, does not constrain the
> project relative to external access. I think it is important to support
> JDBC and ODBC and whatever is in common use for querying. For external
> access the question is quite different. Whereas for the internal format
> consensus around a single choice has large benefits, the external format
> choice is nearly the opposite. For an external format, limiting ourselves
> to a single choice seems like a bad idea and increasing the audience seems
> like a better choice.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I just commented on this first JIRA. Here is my text:
>>
>> This issue has been hashed over a lot in the Hadoop projects. There
>> was work done to compare thrift vs avro vs protobuf. The conclusion
>> was protobuf was the decision to use.
>>
>> Prior to this move, there had been a lot of noise about pluggable RPC
>> transports, and whatnot. It held up adoption of a backwards compatible
>> serialization framework for a long time. The problem ended up being
>> the analysis-paralysis, rather than the specific implementation
>> problem. In other words, the problem was a LACK of implementation than
>> actual REAL problems.
>>
>> Based on this experience, I'd strongly suggest adopting protobuf and
>> moving on. Forget about pluggable RPC implementations, the complexity
>> doesnt deliver benefits. The benefits of protobuf is that its the RPC
>> format for Hadoop and HBase, which allows Drill to draw on the broad
>> experience of those communities who need to implement high performance
>> backwards compatible RPC serialization.
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Expanding a bit, I've looked in to this issue a lot, and there is very
>> few significant concrete reasons to choose protobuf vs thrift. Tiny
>> percent faster of this, and that, etc. I'd strongly suggest protobuf
>> for the expanded community. There is no particular Apache imperative
>> that Apache projects re-use libraries. Use what makes sense for your
>> project.
>>
>> As regards to Avro, it's a fine serialization format for long term
>> data retention, but the complexities that exist to enable that make it
>> non-ideal for an RPC. I know of no one who uses AvroRPC in any form.
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Tomer Shiran <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> We plan to propose the architecture and interfaces in the next couple
>>> weeks, which will make it easy to divide the project into clear building
>>> blocks. At that point it will be easier to start contributing different
>>> data sources, data formats, operators, query languages, etc.
>>>
>>> The contributions are done in the usual Apache way. It's best to open a
>>> JIRA and then post a patch so that others can review and then a committer
>>> can check it in.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Chandan Madhesia <
>> [email protected]
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> What is the process to become a contributor to drill ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> chandan
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Suffice it to say that if *you* think it is important enough to
>> implement
>>>>> and maintain, then the group shouldn't say naye. The consensus stuff
>>>>> should only block things that break something else. Additive features
>>>> that
>>>>> are highly maintainable (or which come with commitments) shouldn't
>>>>> generally be blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Michael Hausenblas <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good. Feel free to put me down for that, if the group as a whole
>> thinks
>>>>>> that (supporting Thrift) makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tomer Shiran
>>> Director of Product Management | MapR Technologies | 650-804-8657
>>
