docker-ce VS gRPC

Yes, Kubernetes, in fact, relies on a number of other free and open source software packages. As a base, it relies on the Docker container runtime and the CoreOS Linux distribution, and it utilizes other open source projects for a number of its components, such as etcd for distributed key-value storage. The tool's core and control plane are both built in GO programming language, making it a completely Go-based application. Kubernetes itself is an open source project and has been used as a building block for other open source projects.

Container images become containers at runtime and in the case of Docker containers - images become containers when they run on Docker Engine.

So I'm surprisingly ignorant on this but I'm curious if the full docker command line tool for linux is free and open source. It seems like https://github.com/docker/docker-ce is free and open source, but it's unclear to me if the docker community edition has other components which are not free and open source since this repository is deprecated. If the base verion is free and open source, why don't open source projects just re-implement equivalents of all of the other tools docker is providing at cost, to create a full free and open source suite?

apt show docker.io Package: docker.io Version: 20.10.7-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 Built-Using: glibc (= 2.31-0ubuntu9), golang-1.13 (= 1.13.8-1ubuntu1) Priority: optional Section: universe/admin Origin: Ubuntu Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers [email protected] Original-Maintainer: Paul Tagliamonte [email protected] Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug Installed-Size: 193 MB Depends: adduser, containerd (>= 1.2.6-0ubuntu1~), iptables, debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, libc6 (>= 2.8), libdevmapper1.02.1 (>= 2:1.02.97), libsystemd0 (>= 209~) Recommends: ca-certificates, git, pigz, ubuntu-fan, xz-utils, apparmor Suggests: aufs-tools, btrfs-progs, cgroupfs-mount | cgroup-lite, debootstrap, docker-doc, rinse, zfs-fuse | zfsutils Breaks: docker (<< 1.5~) Replaces: docker (<< 1.5~) Homepage: https://www.docker.com/community-edition Download-Size: 36.9 MB APT-Sources: https://mirror.asergo.com/ubuntu focal-updates/universe amd64 Packages Description: Linux container runtime Docker complements kernel namespacing with a high-level API which operates at the process level. It runs unix processes with strong guarantees of isolation and repeatability across servers.

Well, Docker CE comes with a huge Disclaimer of Warranty (https://github.com/docker/docker-ce/blob/master/LICENSE). I don't think we can complain. "I should have tested it before deploying to production" it's the right thing to say.

Not sure what you mean by "Go++" that's not really a thing. Docker's engine and tooling is primarily written in Go. You can see a copy of an older version of docker easily at https://github.com/docker/docker-ce/tree/master/components/. A number of other devops tools are written in Go, as are a number of microservices out in the wild.

gRPC, built on HTTP/2, inherently supports flow control. The server can push updates, but it must also respect flow control signals from the client, ensuring that it doesn't send data faster than what the client can handle.

Yes, grpc_cli tool uses essentially the same mechanism except implemented as a grpc service rather than as a stubby service. The basic principle of both is implementing the C++ proto library's DescriptorDatabase interface with cached recursive queries of (usually) the server's compiled in FileDescriptorProtos.

See also https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/doc/server-reflecti...

The primary difference between what grpc does and what stubby does is that grpc uses a stream to ensure that the reflection requests all go to the same server to avoid incompatible version skew and duplicate proto transmissions. With that said, in practice version skew is rarely a problem for grpc_cli style "issue a single RPC" usecases: even if requests do go to two or more different versions of a binary that might have incompatible proto graphs, it is very common for the request and response and RPC to all be in the same proto file so you only need to make one RPC in the first place unless you're using an extension mechanism like proto2 extensions or google.protobuf.Any.

While gRPC and Apache Thrift have served the microservice architecture well, CloudWeGo's advanced features and performance metrics set it apart as a promising open source solution for the future.

The loadBalancingConfig is what we use in order to decide which policy to go for (round_robin in this case). This JSON representation is based on a protobuf message, then why does the name resolver returns it in the JSON format? The main reason is that loadBalancingConfig is a oneof field inside the proto message and so it can not contain values unknown to the gRPC if used in the proto format. The JSON representation does not have this requirement so we can use a custom loadBalancingConfig .

The Dart implementation of gRPC which puts mobile and HTTP/2 first. It's built and maintained by the Dart team. gRPC is a high-performance RPC (remote procedure call) framework that is optimized for efficient data transfer.

gRPC is a high-performance, open-source RPC (Remote Procedure Call) framework initially developed by Google. It uses Protocol Buffers for serialization and supports bidirectional streaming.

In general, tunneling through HTTP2 turns out to be a great choice. There is a RPC protocol built on top of HTTP2: gRPC[1].

This is because HTTP2 is great at exploiting a TCP connection to transmit and receive multiple data structures concurrently - multiplexing.

There may not be a reason to use HTTP3 however, as QUIC already provides multiplexing.

I expect that in the future most communications will be over encrypted HTTP2 and QUIC simply because middleware creators can not resist to discriminate.

[1] <https://grpc.io>

Even in the https://grpc.io blog says this

gRPC