4 ms·

So the major improvement described here is a hint to the server that it should pass the response from one RPC directly into the request of another, rather than

So the major improvement described here is a hint to the server that it should pass the response from one RPC directly into the request of another, rather than returning anything to the client? That seems like it'd only be useful in very specific circumstances; you'd need RPC methods with the same type for request and response, and it only works if you're using the same backend for each call (e.g. you can't have load balancing of separate calls).

kentonv 13y ago
If you read the documentation, I give an extended argument for why this is useful: it enables more object-oriented protocol design. http://kentonv.github.io/capnproto/rpc.html http://kentonv.github.io/capnproto/rpc.html Also, it is not the case that the new RPC's input type has to match the old one's output. You can take just one object embedded in the old response and use it in the new request. Please do look at the examples.