Re: RSocket Followup (post TOC meeting)


Adding Tim Bozarth from Netflix, who's had some practical experience working with both gRPC and RSocket. Full thread here:

+1 to a public feature comparison table. 
In such a table, it will be good to figure out how to do justice to deliberate design choices and the tradeoffs. For example, broker vs no-broker, or choosing to base on top of http/2. Projects have valid reasons to go one way or another, and those considerations are very beneficial for the user to understand.

FYI : I saw a few minor misconceptions for gRPC and I have called out a few that stood out.:
- binary - must be wrapped in protobuf. This is not necessary, though offers a convenience. There are other formats  (eg: flatbuffers) that support gRPC service generation.
- max payload size is confiugrable
- full duplex -- not sure what this means. gRPC supports bi directional streams.
- IPC  is not protobuf only. 

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:45 PM <colin@...> wrote:
Reading through the responses, imo this speaks to a need for a public project feature comparison I mentioned elsewhere in this thread (

Join to automatically receive all group messages.