Not a long time user (though I used it's predecessor heavily). Personally
I like the first one. IDE completion is not much of a problem for me,
since I know that the interesting methods are either get<TAB> or set<Tab>.
Eclipse, for all its problems, does have pretty good autocompletion.
I guess I don't see the benefit in the second approach. Will PongResponse
ever change? If Pong is indeed the response, it should be the top level.
Also, including parts of both approaches would probably be best:
syntax = "proto3";
package test;
message PingRequest {
string theMessage = 1;
}
message PongResponse {
string theResponse = 1;
}
service MyService {
rpc SaySomething (PingRequest) returns (PongResponse);
}
It is a common pattern to name the arguments to the method *Request and
*Response.
Also, I wouldn't worry about a few bytes of difference. They will be lost
in the noise. TLS overhead will probably cost more in terms of size. Same
with HTTP/2 overhead, and gRPC framing overhead. All are still pretty
negligible.
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 1:12:41 AM UTC-8, Jorg Heymans wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering what style people are using to define their grpc services.
> For example, a service def could be written something like this, in its
> most simple form:
>
> syntax = "proto3";
>
> package test;
>
> message Ping {
> string theMessage = 1;
> }
>
> message Pong {
> string theResponse = 1;
> }
>
> service MyService {
> rpc SaySomething (Ping) returns (Pong);
> }
>
> Or, I have also seen this style where the payloads are encapsulated in
> separate request and response objects (more like how you would do it in
> schema perhaps)
>
> syntax = "proto3";
>
> package test;
>
> message Ping {
> string theMessage = 1;
> }
>
> message PingRequest {
> Ping request = 1;
> }
>
> message Pong {
> string theResponse = 1;
> }
>
> message PongResponse {
> Pong response = 1;
> }
>
> service MyService {
> rpc SaySomething (PingRequest) returns (PongResponse);
> }
>
> I find that - at least in java - this definition generates a slightly
> easier to discover code syntax from the ide, but is it worthwhile to
> introduce the indirection and extra payload bytes just for this?
>
> Would be nice to hear from long-time grpc users which style they prefer
> and why :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Jorg
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"grpc.io" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/b7f15975-0365-448a-a0d4-f382770704c8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
