Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve gRPC support #9264

Closed
3 of 6 tasks
emmanuelbernard opened this issue May 13, 2020 · 14 comments
Closed
3 of 6 tasks

Improve gRPC support #9264

emmanuelbernard opened this issue May 13, 2020 · 14 comments
Labels
area/grpc gRPC area/reactive kind/epic Large issue with links to sub-issues

Comments

@emmanuelbernard
Copy link
Member

emmanuelbernard commented May 13, 2020

Clement internal wish: Quarkus 1.7 / 1.8

@emmanuelbernard
Copy link
Member Author

@michalszynkiewicz @cescoffier let's write down what that means and what value this brings.

@cescoffier
Copy link
Member

cescoffier commented May 13, 2020

  • Hot reload support (even when modifying the proto file)
  • Compressor support
  • Proper implementation of the back-pressure protocol
  • load-balancer support

@michalszynkiewicz
Copy link
Member

What about e.g. load balancer support?

@cescoffier
Copy link
Member

Yes, let me add that too.

@cescoffier cescoffier added the area/grpc gRPC label May 15, 2020
@cescoffier cescoffier changed the title gRPC Support v2 Improve gRPC support May 15, 2020
@cescoffier cescoffier added the kind/epic Large issue with links to sub-issues label May 15, 2020
@cescoffier
Copy link
Member

I've added in the issue description the individual issues.

@parkee
Copy link

parkee commented Jul 27, 2020

I noticed currently grpc calls don't propagate tracing context (jaeger or b3 headers).
I suppose that also should be added to the list of improvements.

Is there a way to work around that at this time and manually add support for tracing?

@michalszynkiewicz
Copy link
Member

@pavolloffay what do you think about tracing context for grpc calls ^

@pavolloffay
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@michalszynkiewicz
Copy link
Member

@parkee could you create an issue and we will discuss with @cescoffier when he's back from PTO if we want it here or separately?

@parkee
Copy link

parkee commented Jul 29, 2020

Sure @michalszynkiewicz
#11059

@n1hility
Copy link
Member

@michalszynkiewicz @cescoffier should we split this issue into 1.8 and 1.9? It looks like we aren't going to get to everything in time for 1.8

@cescoffier
Copy link
Member

The remaining issues are mostly going to be 1.9 / 1.10.

@cescoffier
Copy link
Member

@michalszynkiewicz do you prefer keeping this epic or create individual issues?

@michalszynkiewicz
Copy link
Member

we already have individual tasks, don't we?
I'm okay with closing this, I'm focusing on tasks anyway.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/grpc gRPC area/reactive kind/epic Large issue with links to sub-issues
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants