> > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/CABWuLVfFAjKeu%2B%3DzRZEDYgC%3DtkgnO5tZmjbM%2Be8WBoDjU%2B0o5A%40mail.gmail.com.
