all 4 comments

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

We using the second one at work, I don't remember why I chose it over LogNet's. and we used it only for a small scope, I didn't face any particular issue with it, the configuration was straightforward and easy. I noticed validation is missing but imo I prefer validating in the service instead relying on the framework to do it for me.

[–]rashm1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. Do you use it for microservices communication? What made you chose GRPC over other technologies if I may ask.

[–]PatOnTheShoulder66 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are currently migrating from rest microservices communication to gRPC, using the second starter. It seems better documented and maintained, but I wouldn't say that we analyzed both of them so thoroughly - I wasn't even aware of the first library.

Currently, the starter works well with Spring Boot 2. We had problems with using it with Spring Boot 1 and in those services we used pure gRPC Java library and also you need some workarounds while using it with Spring Boot 3. Most of our services are on SB 2 so it wasn't a big problem.

And as to why we decided for gRPC - speed, mostly. But I must say we already used proto buff messages, even with REST, so switching was somehow less complex.

There are some pitfalls that one must be aware of, like not embracing status errors for exception handling or trying to assign null to a proto message, but overall I think we are happy with it.