[richieartoul]

I also agree that the gRPCs libraries (in all languages) tend to be opinionated, and most annoyingly, opinionated about the wrong things.

That said I also haven’t found anything better either and the technology is popular enough that I stick with it and just work around the limitations.

For your specific case I highly recommend ignoring the built in GRPC retry nonsense and using the Java failsafe library retry policies instead. That has worked well for my team at least.

[chii]

> annoyingly, opinionated about the wrong things.

what's what opinions are - they necessarily must be wrong to some people. Otherwise, it'd just be called facts!

[setr]

Having an opinion is not the same as having a good opinion. There’s a range of quality to the matter

[edoceo]

The point is that "good" and "quality" is subjective and highly dependent on use-case.

[setr]

And my point is that it’s not — the starting pieces may differ, and thus the conclusions, but there’s clearly a qualitative difference between the opinion of an expert, and the opinion of a novice. If only that the expert brings far more knowledge into his opinion than the novice. But also in that his opinion is of better foundation, of more supporting infrastructure, of more stable reasoning, and can in general be both better explained and better defended.

Opinions don’t exist in a void — they’re still the outcome of argument, and can easily be compared by that ruler.

And in this case, it’s trivial to imagine utterly terrible opinionated outcomes — use hyphen to represent addition, having functions like c’s get() (impossible to use correctly, and having defaults that are backwards in the common case.

It’s also trivial to imagine what a poorly reasoned opinion might look like: “ what's what opinions are - they necessarily must be wrong to some people. Otherwise, it'd just be called facts!”

[ithkuil]

Some try to confuse this aspect by calling opinions "best practices"