3 ms·

The next time I want to build an API, I will probably make use of https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp. I like working with Proto

The next time I want to build an API, I will probably make use of https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp. I like working with Protobuf and having strongly-typed and well-defined messages, but gRPC is way, way too much. It's obviously a Google product, built for what Google needs. Use Protobuf for messages, but just use HTTP for transport.

karmakaze 3y ago
Can you summarize why "just use HTTP for transport"? It might be useful for someone to be able to tell if the assessment applies to them. "gRPC is way, way too much" and "I like working [...] strongly-typed [...]" can't be meaningfully applied. I don't take either at face-value, e.g. I prefer statically-typed languages but wouldn't tell everyone not to use dynamic ones. I've even seen more recent recommendations to use protobuf with all fields being optional.
- anotherhue 3y ago
  You probably don't have the problems that the grpc transport layer solves for. It adds significant complexity so cost benefit is low.
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    Repeated vague aspertions, without clarifying anything or providing specifics. Break out some technicals, please. Last I checked the grpc transport layer was http with a couple extra headers?
    - theogravity 3y ago
      It's http2-based, completely different implementation compared to http1.
      - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
        It's difficult to stress how little I care about using a decade old+ version of http versus a 2 decade old+ version. This only further exacerbates my feeling that there's not actually a significant & real complaint against grpc or it's complexity, if we're arguing one of the most well established rfc's is the issue. That's not a grpc issue at all. Does grpc have an issue, or is this just general vague pissy anti-modern bellyaching in general? Cause it started insubstantial as heck to start from & if this is the first go to argument, my gods man, zero tolerance for this whiner shit. This is the times. Grpc is not at fault here for using vaguely modern competent protocols. What shit.
        theogravity 3y ago
        I agree. gRPC shouldn't be at fault. From my understanding, it's browsers (Javascript, rather) that are at fault as they don't implement specific http2 features that gRPC requires when it comes to web, which is why an envoy proxy is required (but also comes with limitations). As a result, when it comes to web comm, gRPC isn't given a chance. https://yuku.takahashi.coffee/blog/2019/01/grpc-proxy-for-grpc-web https://yuku.takahashi.coffee/blog/2019/01/grpc-proxy-for-gr...

karmakaze 3y ago

Can you summarize why "just use HTTP for transport"? It might be useful for someone to be able to tell if the assessment applies to them. "gRPC is way, way too much" and "I like working [...] strongly-typed [...]" can't be meaningfully applied. I don't take either at face-value, e.g. I prefer statically-typed languages but wouldn't tell everyone not to use dynamic ones. I've even seen more recent recommendations to use protobuf with all fields being optional.

anotherhue 3y ago
You probably don't have the problems that the grpc transport layer solves for. It adds significant complexity so cost benefit is low.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Repeated vague aspertions, without clarifying anything or providing specifics. Break out some technicals, please. Last I checked the grpc transport layer was http with a couple extra headers?
  - theogravity 3y ago
    It's http2-based, completely different implementation compared to http1.
    - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
      It's difficult to stress how little I care about using a decade old+ version of http versus a 2 decade old+ version. This only further exacerbates my feeling that there's not actually a significant & real complaint against grpc or it's complexity, if we're arguing one of the most well established rfc's is the issue. That's not a grpc issue at all. Does grpc have an issue, or is this just general vague pissy anti-modern bellyaching in general? Cause it started insubstantial as heck to start from & if this is the first go to argument, my gods man, zero tolerance for this whiner shit. This is the times. Grpc is not at fault here for using vaguely modern competent protocols. What shit.
      - theogravity 3y ago
        I agree. gRPC shouldn't be at fault. From my understanding, it's browsers (Javascript, rather) that are at fault as they don't implement specific http2 features that gRPC requires when it comes to web, which is why an envoy proxy is required (but also comes with limitations). As a result, when it comes to web comm, gRPC isn't given a chance. https://yuku.takahashi.coffee/blog/2019/01/grpc-proxy-for-grpc-web https://yuku.takahashi.coffee/blog/2019/01/grpc-proxy-for-gr...