Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

I’ll ping Infra and see what they say > On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:04 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Il gio 28 nov 2019, 14:02 Andor Molnar ha scritto: > >> Unfortunately non-committers are having some difficulties joining that >> channel. >> >> For example: >> "@Mate Szalay-Beko is a

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

Il gio 28 nov 2019, 14:02 Andor Molnar ha scritto: > Unfortunately non-committers are having some difficulties joining that > channel. > > For example: > "@Mate Szalay-Beko is a Multi-Channel Guest. Only your Workspace Admin can > invite them to a public channel.” > > Does anyone have an idea

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

Unfortunately non-committers are having some difficulties joining that channel. For example: "@Mate Szalay-Beko is a Multi-Channel Guest. Only your Workspace Admin can invite them to a public channel.” Does anyone have an idea what does that mean? Andor > On 2019. Nov 27., at 19:18, Jordan

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

FYI We have an open discussion regarding replacing Jute, using gRPC and related things in this sub channel on the ASF Slack board. All are welcome to join in: https://the-asf.slack.com/archives/CQKS7A3FT -Jordan > On Nov 18, 2019, at 9:25 AM,

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

>> Or, am I missing something you're seeing? No, you were right. I misunderstood. Thanks for clarification! On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 5:33 PM Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > > It's still > > difficult to write a client because there needs to be language specific > > implementations for the rpc mapper

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

> It's still > difficult to write a client because there needs to be language specific > implementations for the rpc mapper that maps jute Record to protobuf. No. I'm sorry if it isn't clear. RecordMapper and all related classes (everything in this package:

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

>> That's 100% protobuf/gRPC Yes agree. Sorry, I should be probably more clear. What I meant "serialization format" in this case is jute's Record, which is still used in the POC code base. The wire serialization format is protobuf, and it's converted to / from Record through the rpc mapper

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

> The proof of concept is still using jute as serialization format, which > makes write a client library harder. Use protobuf as serialization format > might achieve this goal the marshal / unmarshal code can be generated > automatically. No it doesn't. Have you seen "zookeeper.proto"? That's

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

>> The goal is to make it possible to easily write ZooKeeper clients in non-JVM languages. The proof of concept is still using jute as serialization format, which makes write a client library harder. Use protobuf as serialization format might achieve this goal the marshal / unmarshal code can be

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

Interesting, at a first glance I thought it is a client wrapper for polyglot communicating and has nothing to do with ZOOKEEPER-102. Will take a look at the JIRA since you attach a plan of the whole story. Best, tison. Jordan Zimmerman 于2019年11月19日周二 上午5:23写道： > We can resurrect

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

We can resurrect https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-102 > On Nov 18, 2019, at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Wong wrote: > > I’d be willing to offer some of my spare time towards this effort. > > Jonathan Wong > >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Jordan Zimmerman >> wrote: >> >> A fresh

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

I’d be willing to offer some of my spare time towards this effort. Jonathan Wong > On Nov 18, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Jordan Zimmerman > wrote: > > A fresh look at APIs is definitely in order. So, this would be a potential > ZK 4.x. > >> That said, we added things like rest in the past for

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

A fresh look at APIs is definitely in order. So, this would be a potential ZK 4.x. > That said, we added things like rest in the past for similar reasons and it > never really took off... Would be a shame to see the same here. ZK has had a lot more activity with recent committers. So, maybe

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

There are quite a few benefits to using grpc imo. It's come up a few times where I've been part of the discussion - ala we make it b/w compat it would be a good move imo. Then the question becomes what else do we fix at the same time? e.g. make version fields 64 bit rather than 32? etc... there

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

> That looks like great work. In order to address the issues, why not build on > top of curator (https://curator.apache.org)? (Note: I'm the main author of Curator). I'd definitely try to make something like Curator for gRPC. I'm not sure exactly what that means at this point. But, my main

Re: Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

That looks like great work. In order to address the issues, why not build on top of curator (https://curator.apache.org)? I could support in case question rise with SASL, but I am not sure yet if I find the time to actively develop for this unfortunately > Am 18.11.2019 um 15:25 schrieb

Any interest in a gRPC version of ZooKeeper

Hi Folks, I've written a proof of concept implementation of a ServerCnxnFactory that implements gRPC. The goal is to make it possible to easily write ZooKeeper clients in non-JVM languages. Using the proof of concept I was able to write a Golang client easily. What's the interest level of