Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jayant Kolhe <jkolhe@...> wrote:
Can you please list which ones are notable? The main one seems to be "streaming" replies. This shouldn't prevent someone building a http 1 compatibility layer, if that what helps people with adoption.
How much does that matter to real world users for the practical cases that such an implementation would facilitate?
I'm sure we can find CNCF community engineers who would be willing and able to have a go. How hard can it be?
I'm interested to understand how you measure this.
Please don't take this the wrong way -- I like gRPC and am excited about it!
But: expecting proxies to solve this stuff, kind of undermines the whole approach. Not having an obvious Joe User adoption path will impede gRPC from being in some sense universal. It may also lead to people feeling let down if they hear (a) that gRPC is the new hotness, and that everyone should try it, but (b) it has compatibility problems that may not be resolved.
I vividly recall Brad Fitz telling me back in 2009 (or thereabouts) that, for HTTP, it is prudent to assume the worst when it comes to widespread adoption. He pointed out that many servers & proxies still spoke 0.9 at the time.