undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdanpalmer1y ago0 comments

I also disagree, at Google everything is RPCs in a similar way to gRPC internally, and I barely need to think about the mechanics of them most of the time, whereas with REST/raw HTTP, you need to think about so much of the process – connection lifecycle, keepalive, error handling at more layers, connection pools, etc.

However, I used to work in a company that used HTTP internally, and moving to gRPC would have sucked. If you're the one adding gRPC to a new service, that's more of a pain than `import requests; requests.get(...)`. There is no quick and hacky solution for gRPC, you need a fully baked, well integrated solution, rolled out across everyone who will need it.

0 comments

pianoben1y ago

The flexibility of HTTP has advantages, too; it's simple to whip up a `curl` command to try things out. How does Google meet that need for gRPC APIs?

danpalmerOP1y ago

There's a curl for RPCs internally. It helps too that RPC servers are self describing, so you can actually list the services and methods exposed by a server. I'd say it's much simpler than curl, although again that's in large part because there's a lot of shared infra and understanding, and starting from scratch on that would be hard.

allset_1y ago

Server reflection exists (https://grpc.io/docs/guides/reflection/), but you don't really need to whip out curl when you have the RPC service's definition. It tells you everything you need to know about what to send and what you will receive, so you can just start writing type-safe code.

bootsmann1y ago

>you don't really need to whip out curl when you have the RPC service's definition

Following up a "how do I experiment with this in my workflow" with "oh you don't need to" is not the greatest look. There is a vast portion of programming bugs that stem from someone misunderstanding what a given API does, so the ability to quickly self-verify that one is doing things right is essential.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse