11 ms·

Its a good time to ask, is gRPC any good? I'd love to standardize on stable middleware layer that handles multiple versions of clients and servers well. Rest wi

• dmayle 9y ago
  Json is a serialization format. gRPC is both a serialization format and a DDL (data definition language). That means that you are storing your schema, which also happens to contain interoperability features. ...and the serialization format is more efficient.
  • jdc0589 9y ago
    gRPC uses protobuf, they are not synonymous.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • cube2222 9y ago
    It's actually protobuf which is both a serialization format and data definition language. gRPC is more of a service definition language in that sense.
  • Xorlev 9y ago
    Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on gRPC. It's worth mentioning that gRPC is actually format-agnostic. While I can't say it does the best job of this (gRPC+protobuf works best), there's precedent for using any transport in gRPC. gRPC-Java includes examples of JSON serialization and Thrift serialization. gRPC is just the transport protocol (its self built on HTTP/2). That said, I'd highly recommend protobufs, they're great. Define your schema in an agnostic way such that it can be easily browsed and compiled to multiple languages.
    • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      As a note, a disclaimer like this given without explanation could seem to indicate gRPC is a Google product even though apparently it no longer is. I actually had a conversation with the gRPC mailing list a few weeks back about how weirdly this has been communicated on their website as well. The linked blog post continues to refer to 'we' as 'Google'. (For those curious, IIRC it is now been handed off to a subgroup of the Linux Foundation, called the Cloud Native Computing Foundation. The change does not appear to be well advertised on their website, which contains no reference to it.)
      • mehrdada 9y ago
        Thanks for the feedback; we updated the footer: https://github.com/grpc/grpc.github.io/pull/622/files https://github.com/grpc/grpc.github.io/pull/622/files Note that this is an open-source project, and the website itself is on GitHub Pages, so feel free to send us pull requests. Sometimes the reason behind things not changing is not a huge conspiracy, but no one actually having spare time to do it. :)
        • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
          Perfect. It'll be nice when Google isn't the only 'author' ;) but now I can clearly end up finding the CNCF this way. It just seemed apparent from the parent comment that it was possible even Googlers commenting were unaware gRPC was now under the CNCF! :) I generally wouldn't file a PR on someone's copyright line or similar legalese, I don't know what the impact would be for any given organization or how they need to format it.
          • mehrdada 9y ago
            CONTRIBUTING.md in the repository[1] explicitly suggests authors to add their name to the AUTHORS file on their first substantial commit should they like to. A reviewer would work with them on the order and formatting. One thing is for sure: there is a diverse contributor base; you can see the full list in the git history. [1] https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
  • malkia 9y ago
    The schema is not stored, rather think of it this way, a .proto file once it generates an interface for specific language, then this actual code understands the schema. Now on the wire, you simply sent field numbers (e.g. the numbers that you have to manually specify in monotonically increasing way, and never reuse smaller number), and either simple type (int, float) or symbol reference to another. But you never send the actual schema... Now some specific storage formats, might have a duplicate version of that schema, but this may be just part of their design. So the nice thing, is that if you follow some simple rules, like: never reuse previous number, be careful when changing types of existing fields (there are only so and so ways it can go), then you can upgrade independently your services, and the data being pushed. For example if you've added a new field (and new number), then your existing code (that's still compiled with the older schema), might just ignore it, since, even that it's there, there is no endpoint (e.g. method call to read it) for it to be accessed. Off course, it's not so simple. After all, there are tricks, should I simply pass through fields that I do not understand to other services, or should I filter them? I certainly don't know. I wish protos are used more and more, and ways to put them into various databases (like mysql, postgres, sqlite, etc.) is done. Then also formats that store such data in more optimal way, by rearranging such that compression can be gained, and later faster retrieval, etc.
• kajecounterhack 9y ago
  Versioning your API is one huge benefit and better done using proto/rpc. If you change your Json schema, have fun propagating that change to all clients without fear. Or hope you've built special infra to do that. Also "just more efficient" is a funny way to characterize the performance difference between just data bytes vs data + structure bytes (read: the gap is large). You gain in transmission and you gain during deserialization / parsing. Here is an example. {"My key":"my value"} has n=21 characters. When you parse you must scan the whole 21 characters O(n), every time, just to read the thing. If you instead store this in fixed size bytes, where you have some fixed # of bytes that tell you "my value starts at address 0x43", then you can skip to just the values you care about. You don't need brackets or quotes. And you can use other nifty tricks to compress the binary representation further for savings on the wire.
  • weberc2 9y ago
    I fully agree, but want to point out that JSON can be compressed.
    • virmundi 9y ago
      You're absolutely right. Auth0 shows that when compressed, protobufs don't provide a great benefit vs JSON. Something I've read from others is that gRPC is not the easiest thing to use directly in SPA. If you have services exposed to a web front end and mobile, double exposing a REST-ish API + gRPC might not be worth it. This is a problem with which I'm currently struggling. https://auth0.com/blog/beating-json-performance-with-protobuf/ https://auth0.com/blog/beating-json-performance-with-protobu...
      • chrissnell 9y ago
        I spoke to some of the gRPC folks at KubeCon/CNCon and the word is that browser support is in the works. There are some existing, slightly hackish ways to do it already but I'm confident that they will get it done properly. It will be huge when that's a reality and we start building all of our APIs around protobuf.
      • 9y ago
• dhavalshreyas 9y ago
  Biggest benefits I've seen so far. Codegen, streaming connections, API versioning.
• mattb314 9y ago
  re: efficiency, I think this blog post does a decent job explaining: https://auth0.com/blog/beating-json-performance-with-protobuf/ https://auth0.com/blog/beating-json-performance-with-protobu.... Basically, it doesn't make a huge difference if you're communicating with a Javascript endpoint, but Java to Java (or probably between other non-js backends) you can save a lot of time on serialization/deserialization. It's worth noting that the post uses fairly large blobs (50k people and addresses), and you probably won't see as big of a difference on smaller requests.
• willvarfar 9y ago
  Afraid I'm going to be contrary and old-fashioned and say I prefer JSON. Its never been problematic adding or extending JSON endpoints and its never been a problem using basic gzip compression on the fly either. And JSON endpoints are a damn sight easier to debug and wireshark and all the rest. I've spent a lot of time writing fast JSON serialization for various languages including Java etc; its staggering how inefficient most libraries are. But that's not really JSON's fault.
  • kyrra 9y ago
    There are definitely cases for both. JSON is definitely easier to consume as a human (so for debugging). gRPC was born out of Google's Stubby rpc system[0], which is used heavily for communicating between different jobs. If you are going to stand up a lot of different services that are going to talk, it provides a lot of advantages that you don't get with JSON. For large companies that use multiple program languages, this is really nice, as proto3 and GRPC have code generators for a slew of different languages. There are a lot of other niceties that are useful in gRPC that you don't get with JSON (like streaming data). [0] https://grpc.io/blog/principles https://grpc.io/blog/principles
    • kajecounterhack 9y ago
      Yeah, you can certainly use JSON until you start caring about cost / performance then switch over. I don't use gRPC on hobby projects because writing a flask or express server that receives json payloads is much faster. But if I were writing the next Uber or Facebook or whatever I'd probably get on gRPC or thrift or another RPC system as soon as we hit a non-trivial number of users.
    • malkia 9y ago
      Also a protobuf may be stored directly in some of the databases google uses internally, then you have lots of tools around them (diffing with map-reduces done on them, etc.).
  • trhway 9y ago
    >Afraid I'm going to be contrary and old-fashioned and say I prefer JSON. history is completing full circle. Before JSON (HTTP REST) there was RPC. JSON was a new and shiny thing while the RPC was for the old-fashioned. The JSON took over exactly for all the great advantages over RPC that you listed (and a bunch of others) and despite all the advantages of RPC that people in this thread tout today as the gRPC advantages. I suspect that in 10-15 years some young guys at Google will come up with gJSON, and their arguments for it will look like your comment today.
• stock_toaster 9y ago
  I found gRPC to be a bit too heavyweight and complex. I'm pretty excited about twirp[1] right now. [1]: https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp
  • tyrankh 9y ago
    Can you elaborate? Which language were you using it in, and for what usecase?
  • cube2222 9y ago
    What have you find too complex about protobuffs? Unfortunately twirp is go-only.
    • weberc2 9y ago
      It's go-only for now. Protobufs includes a code gen step, which is a burden on project tooling and workflow and it's not very fun using the types it generates or writing boilerplate to convert to the types you'd prefer. Also, I'm not sure about twirp, but protobufs doesn't have a good way to model interface or sum types last I checked.
      • Xorlev 9y ago
        Proto 3 has the "oneof" type. For instance: message MyThing { oneof sum_type { TypeOne type_one = 1; TypeTwo type_two = 2; } } The lack of inheritance seems awkward at first, but with oneof it isn't much of a blocker. The APIs for this aren't always great -- Go's in particular feel kind of awkward (IMO). Java's are nice -- it's a separate enum you can switch over. An example from a Go project of mine: switch req.StartAt.(type) { case *pb.GetLogsRequest_Timestamp: t, err := types.TimestampFromProto(req.GetTimestamp()) if err != nil { return nil, errors.Errorf("Bad timestamp: %v", req.GetTimestamp()) } filter.Timestamp = t case *pb.GetLogsRequest_Offset: filter.StartOffset = req.GetOffset() case *pb.GetLogsRequest_Position_: switch req.GetPosition() { case pb.GetLogsRequest_LATEST: filter.Position = LATEST case pb.GetLogsRequest_EARLIEST: filter.Position = EARLIEST } case nil: default: return nil, errors.Errorf("Unknown GetLogsRequest.StartAt type.") } }
• cube2222 9y ago
  If you're doing microservices it's getting kinda boring to write all your client libraries, gRPC generates your client code, which saves time.
• Thaxll 9y ago
  Also streaming that you can't do with regular REST, so think about push notification and the like. One of the biggest advantage imo is the contract between the client and the server, both are always in sync about what to send / receive. I've seen many times things break because x,y,x added a field or change a type that the server / client couldn't understand.
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Also streaming that you can't do with regular REST Nothing about the REST architectural style prohibits a resource (or, rather, a particular resource representation) from being a stream.
    • Thaxll 9y ago
      What protocol / library do you use for that? afaik there is nothing since this can only works properly on HTTP/2 which REST doesn't really use.
    • dguaraglia 9y ago
      Academic discussion: wouldn't the "stateless" part of REST preclude using a stream that necessarily needs to keep track of state? Practical discussion: the biggest advantage of using REST is that you had a client readily available in pretty much every language. Most of those clients haven't been updated to deal with the HTTP/2 machinery necessary to drive streams the way gRPC does.
      • zeveb 9y ago
        > Most of those clients haven't been updated to deal with the HTTP/2 machinery necessary to drive streams the way gRPC does. HTTP has supported streaming data for years, e.g. Server-Sent Events[0]. The short version is that you GET a URL, and the body keeps on arriving forever. I'm pretty sure that we had this sort of HTTP streaming back in the late 90s … I'll grant that many JSON-oriented pseudo-REST clients probably don't support it, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-sent_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server-sent_events
• macrael 9y ago
  It would be an ideal standard if it supported browsers.
• Inflatablewoman 9y ago
  My only regret is that when we started our current project, I did not commit 100% to gRPC, so now we have a mix of services. If I had of gone all in, it would be easier to integrate upcoming things like conduit [1], and I would not have to generate Swagger files but could just ship the proto files. [1] https://conduit.io/ https://conduit.io/
  • matthewrudy 9y ago
    I believe conduit is going to support HTTP1.1 by the time it's done. The http2 and grpc focus was just to get the alpha release out there.
• zimbatm 9y ago
  Most of the comments here focus on Protobuf but the other half of gRPC is HTTP/2, and HTTP/2 is very complex. Good luck implementing a half-decent HTTP/2 client or server library if your language doesn't support it already. This is easily a 6 months job. The other issue with HTTP/2 is that most client libraries require TLS to work. Development environments become harder to setup. It becomes harder to sniff the traffic during debugging. In client/server scenarios where both are on the same machine this also creates unnecessary overhead.