goprotobuf VS gRPC

Now let’s take a look at the source code of the protoc-gen-go plugin:

Wait, you say, in Go you can embed a struct with default method implementations to "inherit" them in your composed struct... sure, except any methods called by those methods are early-bound in the original struct, completely ignoring your wrapper, so the best you can do is "not implemented" rather than actually implement something. It is at least a way to prevent semver-major breakage, which the gRPC generator uses, but that's about as far as it gets you.

The classic answer is protobufs. You can serialize out to binary format.

Seems like go is pretty middle of the road. I can only guess as to why but it probably has to do with heavy usage of pointers and reflection which are much slower than other implementations. Gogo/protobuf (RIP) solved this performance with code generation, but the the official go protobuf implementation has essentially eschewed it. I do wonder how the benchmark would look using the new vitess proto library for Go (which has many of the benefits of gogo but with active development and an API built on top of the Google one)

Maybe I'm missing something, but my read of [golang/protobuf#364](https://github.com/golang/protobuf/issues/364) was that the re-organization in protobuf-go v2 was allow for optimizations like gogoprotobuf to be developed without requiring a complete fork. I totally understand that the authors of gogoprotobuf do not have the time to re-architect their library to use these hooks, but best I can figure this generator does not use these hooks either. Instead it defines additional member functions, and wrappers that look for those specialized functions and fallback to the generic ones if not found.

I am thinking about stuff like the [ProtoMethods](https://pkg.go.dev/google.golang.org/[email protected]/reflec...) API.

I wonder why not? Did the authors of the vtprotobuf extension not want to bite off that much work? Is the new API not sufficient to do what they want (thus failing some of the goals expressed in golang/protobuf#364?

In this case try approach with line by line generation. Very much like what protoc-gen-go does for Go code: https://github.com/golang/protobuf/blob/ae97035608a719c7a1c1c41bed0ae0744bdb0c6f/protoc-gen-go/grpc/grpc.go#L142, need to implement this kind of generator yourself.

Something like this: https://github.com/golang/protobuf/blob/master/internal/gengogrpc/grpc.go

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