> > I might say: "As of March 2021, three-party handoff and capability >>> equality -- two advanced-but-important features of CapTP -- are not yet >>> supported by Cap'n Proto." >>> >> >> That sounds a bit too massaged. I think it should flatly state that the >> *reference* implementation doesn't implement the full standard. >> > > Fair enough. > > Maybe: "As of March 2021, Cap'n Proto's reference implementation does not > support all of the features that have been specified in its own protocol. > In particular, three-party handoff and capability equality -- identified in > the spec as level 3 and level 4, respectively -- are not yet supported." >
I agree with you that an explanation of the protocols should precede this statement. But if you are self conscious about Cap'n Proto not supporting levels 3 & 4 ... it *is* weird and it makes Cap'n Proto feel half baked 😟. I'm not saying this because I want to be mean, I love Cap'n Proto and want to see it succeed! But the reference implementation being in C++ means it's not suitable for medium-to-high assurance projects, it lacks features that really set it apart from other frameworks (zero-copy IPC, advanced OCap functionality, and built in encryption), and it's not available in as many languages as competitors. I *really* don't like giving this type of feedback, but hopefully it's constructive. > Google also uses a variety of other technologies, but I think it's >> accurate to say that Protobufs/gRPC is their "primary" RPC system. I know >> you don't want to oversell your role in the company, but I don't think we >> should split hairs here. What I'm trying to get across is that there is a >> massive technology company which adopted it internally and is *actively* >> contributing financial support to the project. Does Cloudflare pay >> developers to hack on protobufs or Thrift? >> > > I don't think you can consider these equivalent. Nearly every project and > engineer at Google uses Protobuf. If you try to choose something else > you'll get pushback. At Cloudflare, each team makes their own decisions > about what to use and doesn't receive any pressure to choose one tech over > the other. I think only three projects use Cap'n Proto, out of dozens. > There are probably more projects using Protobuf than Cap'n Proto (but I > haven't done a survey). > > Cloudflare doesn't really pay anyone to hack on Cap'n Proto specifically. > They pay us to build Cloudflare Workers, and in doing that we add what we > need to Cap'n Proto (or, more commonly, KJ). If someone on a Protobuf-using > project decided they needed a change in Protobuf, they could go make that > change. Of course, employing the owner of the project makes it a lot easier > to get changes accepted, so there's that. > > In any case, it's accurate to say Cloudflare is using and driving > development of Cap'n Proto, but it's not accurate to say that Cap'n Proto > is Cloudflare's "primary" internal RPC system. > That's fair. I've switched it to "which uses Cap'n Proto internally". > > -Kenton > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to capnproto+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/CABWuLVfFAjKeu%2B%3DzRZEDYgC%3DtkgnO5tZmjbM%2Be8WBoDjU%2B0o5A%40mail.gmail.com.
