Channels are relatively heavier weight and thus it could be a good idea to not create a lot of them (unless you hit some throughput bottleneck). Stubs are pretty cheap. Channels and stubs are all thread-safe.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:22 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, i meant "Is it better to also create only one stub for all these > calls or to create a stub for every function call..." > > Am Dienstag, 12. November 2019 22:18:15 UTC+1 schrieb > [email protected]: >> >> After hours of reading on internet and not getting an answer i will ask >> here. We are currently trying to replace SOAP with grpc for our client >> server architecture. On the client side we are using grpc c++. Now the >> question is what is the best approach to create stubs and channels. What i >> understand is that its the best to only have one channel and use it for all >> calls. But what about stubs. We have round about 100 functions that will >> call the server on different threads. Is it better to also create only one >> stub for all these calls or to create one stub and make asynchronous calls? >> And what about thread safety? >> > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/643efd39-8d2e-45fc-9936-d6b8a10420f2%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/643efd39-8d2e-45fc-9936-d6b8a10420f2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CAB1HKY72FNjiMPKgKsh%3D_qh1Wqp-0js9-xifahyciVpCv%3D0-3g%40mail.gmail.com.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
