On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Patrik Nordwall wrote:
> Isn't the difference that with Kryo you don't have to write the tedious
> mapping code between the domain classes and the protobuf classes?
>
To a large degree, yes -- my real problem with protobuf is that it's
essentially decoupled code
I think we are talking about the differences between external config(like
proto file) described schema vs self-described(class itself) schema.
On Saturday, 18 March 2017 22:23:14 UTC+8, Patrik Nordwall wrote:
>
> Isn't the difference that with Kryo you don't have to write the tedious
> mapping c
Isn't the difference that with Kryo you don't have to write the tedious
mapping code between the domain classes and the protobuf classes?
For the Akka internal classes we see that mapping as an advantage because
it gives us full control but I can understand that in a large system that
code can be
OK, I am trying to use Avro in my akka application, but anyway I will key
an eye on your posts.
Thank you.
On Saturday, 18 March 2017 21:12:34 UTC+8, Justin du coeur wrote:
>
> Honestly, it's pretty subjective -- if I had known then what I know now,
> I'm not sure I would have bothered. I like
Honestly, it's pretty subjective -- if I had known then what I know now,
I'm not sure I would have bothered. I like having my classes be relatively
self-describing, not so dependent on external config in order to function,
so I like this approach, but I could easily argue the other side. I was
mo
>
> Hi Justin,
>
Thank you for your information and suggestion.
I have read your blog but I can't see the benefit of using scala to
describe the schema over using an external description file(like .proto).
But I look forward your unfinished part.
--
>> Read the docs: http://akka.
I have to take issue with "really hard" -- I'm using Kryo for my Akka
Persistence, and it's working well. It's totally possible to handle schema
evolution with it, and it is *not* rocket science.
That said, I'll agree that it isn't trivial by any means: I put a
significant amount of effort into g
If you use a tool that automagically makes protocol out of classes it is
really hard to deal with wire compatibility, giving guarantees that old
messages can still be deserialized, for example on rolling upgrades, or
when stored (akka-persistence) for a longer period of time. Both these
aspects are
Is there any special consideration that akka choose to use protobuf for
internal serialization/deserialization?
Why use schema-based serialization? I am evaluating the serialization
library for messages between akka actors.
I think the schema-based serialization is not convenient as non
schema-
