[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-5124?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14273560#comment-14273560
]
Shixiong Zhu commented on SPARK-5124:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
1. Let's not rely on the property of local actor not passing messages through a
socket for local actor speedup. Conceptually, there is no reason to tie local
actor implementation to RPC. DAGScheduler's actor used to be a simple queue &
event loop (before it was turned into an actor for no good reason). We can
restore it to that.
{quote}
OK. I will change DAGScheduler actor to a simple event loop.
{quote}
2. Have you thought about how the fate sharing stuff would work with
alternative RPC implementations?
{quote}
Just want to make sure we are thinking the same thing: do you mean how to
notify DisassociatedEvent in alternative RPC implementation? If so, I'm
thinking how to extract it from the RPC layer. But have not yet started it.
> Standardize internal RPC interface
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-5124
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-5124
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Spark Core
> Reporter: Reynold Xin
> Assignee: Shixiong Zhu
> Attachments: Pluggable RPC - draft 1.pdf
>
>
> In Spark we use Akka as the RPC layer. It would be great if we can
> standardize the internal RPC interface to facilitate testing. This will also
> provide the foundation to try other RPC implementations in the future.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
