[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Bryan Duxbury updated THRIFT-248:
---------------------------------

    Attachment: thrift-248-v4.patch

Here's another step closer. I've replaced the original 
binaryprotocolaccelerated.c with binary_protocol_accelerated.c, which contains 
nothing but the serialization methods. BPA passes the shared binary protocol 
specs, which is good, but I've commented out all the accelerated-specific specs 
for the moment. I'm not sure if we need these separate specs, or if they should 
just be merged into the shared specs.

I'll benchmark the new accelerated proto implementation and report the results 
shortly.

> Factor BinaryProtocolAccelerated into separate protocol and struct components
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: THRIFT-248
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-248
>             Project: Thrift
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Library (Ruby)
>            Reporter: Bryan Duxbury
>            Assignee: Bryan Duxbury
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: thrift-248-v2.patch, thrift-248-v3.patch, 
> thrift-248-v4.patch, thrift-248.patch
>
>
> Kevin Clark's excelled BinaryProtocolAccelerated implementation in the Ruby 
> library is very fast, in large part due to the fact that it implements not 
> just the protocol but also the struct components of serialization directly as 
> a C extension. The problem with this arrangement is that other protocols that 
> would benefit from accelerated struct code don't get the benefit. In 
> particular, I'd like to make my implementation of the Compact Protocol fast 
> in Ruby, and the key appears to be the struct serialization code. 
> I think that we should make an effort to divorce the struct stuff from the 
> protocol stuff in BinaryProtocolAccelerated, so that all protocols can 
> benefit. Some quick benchmarking seems to indicate that there is going to be 
> some additional method call overhead in this situation, but it's not really 
> that substantial. 

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to