bloomrpc VS gRPC

Why another one? I'm working with gRPC every day and for my opinion all existed GUI clients do not well designed or do not have fully gRPC features support. And some of them like BloomRPC unfortunately are unmaintained.

There’s also BloomRPC, which is like Postman/Insomnia for GRPC:

https://github.com/bloomrpc/bloomrpc

Can recommend bloomrpc is good GUI Client for GRPC Services. Grpc service handlers:

I would like to introduce you to a gRPC client tool(pgt) for your own use, it is used similarly to postman/bloomrpc.

Hey! Not at all. There is a wonderful tool called BloomRPC I mainly use this. Very recently Postman announced that they will support gRPC too. Postman Blog

The best alternative I found is BloomRPC

You can also play with the gRPC API, the nicest interface I found was Bloomrpc. Have fun!

official gRPC link

Choose a consistent communication protocol for inter-service communication. Common protocols include HTTP, gRPC, and message brokers like RabbitMQ or Kafka. NestJS supports various communication strategies, allowing you to choose the one that best fits your needs.

gRPC is an open-source high-performance RPC framework developed by Google. The design goal of gRPC is to run in any environment, supporting pluggable load balancing, tracing, health checking, and authentication. It not only supports service calls within and across data centers but is also suitable for the last mile of distributed computing, connecting devices, mobile applications, and browsers to backend services. For more on the motivation and principles behind gRPC's design, refer to this article: gRPC Motivation and Design Principles.

And, gRPC is a high-performance, open-source protocol used for creating APIs. It uses Google's Protocol Buffers as a data format and provides support for streaming and bi-directional communication.

gRPC, built on HTTP/2, inherently supports flow control. The server can push updates, but it must also respect flow control signals from the client, ensuring that it doesn't send data faster than what the client can handle.

Yes, grpc_cli tool uses essentially the same mechanism except implemented as a grpc service rather than as a stubby service. The basic principle of both is implementing the C++ proto library's DescriptorDatabase interface with cached recursive queries of (usually) the server's compiled in FileDescriptorProtos.

See also https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/doc/server-reflecti...

The primary difference between what grpc does and what stubby does is that grpc uses a stream to ensure that the reflection requests all go to the same server to avoid incompatible version skew and duplicate proto transmissions. With that said, in practice version skew is rarely a problem for grpc_cli style "issue a single RPC" usecases: even if requests do go to two or more different versions of a binary that might have incompatible proto graphs, it is very common for the request and response and RPC to all be in the same proto file so you only need to make one RPC in the first place unless you're using an extension mechanism like proto2 extensions or google.protobuf.Any.

While gRPC and Apache Thrift have served the microservice architecture well, CloudWeGo's advanced features and performance metrics set it apart as a promising open source solution for the future.

The loadBalancingConfig is what we use in order to decide which policy to go for (round_robin in this case). This JSON representation is based on a protobuf message, then why does the name resolver returns it in the JSON format? The main reason is that loadBalancingConfig is a oneof field inside the proto message and so it can not contain values unknown to the gRPC if used in the proto format. The JSON representation does not have this requirement so we can use a custom loadBalancingConfig .

The Dart implementation of gRPC which puts mobile and HTTP/2 first. It's built and maintained by the Dart team. gRPC is a high-performance RPC (remote procedure call) framework that is optimized for efficient data transfer.