Hi Jakob! gRPC has it's own name resolution built into it's own URLs, so it may get confusing. For example, a dns based gRPC service would be dns:///localhost:9988 . Note the actual address info is in the /path/ of the URI, rather than the host or authority. For domain socket based connections, its uds:///tmp/file.sock
If you plan on supporting the multiple name resolution schemes gRPC has, you would need to embed the full gRPC URL into the the URL you planned on using. Like grpc:///dns:///localhost:9988 As for the name, I would avoid including the "s" at the end. Several plaintext protocols are actually secure (such as in memory, UDS, or via a Secure proxy). If you can limit the scope of supported protocols, you can probably do something like grpc+plaintext:/// or something along those lines, as I have seen that elsewhere. HTH, Carl On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:47:08 AM UTC-8, Jakob Buchgraber wrote: > > Hi, > > in our project we want to allow a user to specify a URI to a service > endpoint via a flag. We support multiple protocols > for talking to service endpoints, including gRPC. The current plan is to > select the protocol to use based on the scheme > component of the URI. > > Do you provide any guidance as to what name to use for the scheme? I was > thinking "grpc" and "grpcs" to be > reasonable to choices. > > Thanks, > Jakob > -- 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/4843f338-47d2-493f-81f6-c28a9f9f4916%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
