protobuf-ts VS gRPC

DX for front or back end? The beauty of tRPC is that the types are derived/inferred from the backend runtime code (like, as you type). It would be nigh impossible to do that with grpc(-web) using proto files as the source of truth.

It's possible there's a project out there which could automatically produce proto files from something like zod, json-schema, etc. which could be directly interpreted by TS to provide similar (as you type) DX while still allowing some other language backend to consume the derived proto files (though the DX there would be less than ideal).

If you're just looking for similar TS clients/interfaces for grpc-web then I'd recommend https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts which operates on plain JS objects (no new MyMessage().serialize(), instead the code generator mostly produces TS interfaces for you to work against: const myMessage: MyMessage = pojoConformingToInterface; const binary = MyMessage.toBinary(myMessage);)

https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts (RpcMetaData) https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts/blob/main/MANUAL.md

The second big difference is that we now have auto-generated client and server stubs. For this task, I chose to use buf and the protobuf-ts plugin in order to generate idiomatic Typescript classes and objects. Not only do these classes describe the types we'll use in the server and client, but also includes the actual gRPC implementations used to serialize and send messages back and forth across the wire.

I wouldn’t use grpc with web if you can avoid it. If you’re looking for a ts protobuf library I can recommend this one https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts

https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts looks interesting too.

I'd recommend looking into protobuf-ts (Timo from Buf) or protobuf-es (Buf maintained).

Use a GRPC library for frontend, assuming you want to go with Typescript take a look at https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts Frontend frameworks like Angular/React/Vue don't define what and how to implement backend communication. You can use what you want and how you want it.

And there's also this which is by the same author but came before it: https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts

The latter has code-generation for services and has various transport packages for twirp, grpc, and grpc-web.

This looks very interesting! Anything that can move people away from protobuf.js (which seems to no longer be maintained and depends on prototype values for "default values" meaning that you can't send deserialized protobuf messages to/from web workers) and the "native" JS codegen by Google (which produces code that is both very slow and a awkward to use) is a win in my book.

We're currently using https://github.com/timostamm/protobuf-ts which has been fantastic. It's codegen is dependent on the protoc binary as it is implemented as a protoc plugin, but the code it generates passes the protobuf conformance tests. The generated code also outputs plain objects when deserializing protobuf messages which means it works perfectly when sending stuff to/from web workers. It also has grpc, grpc-web, and twirp clients.

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