<p>hi <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/hovercards?user_id=301810" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/cbeams">@cbeams</a>, thx for the response, my 2cents (as <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/hovercards?user_id=431064" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/blabno">@blabno</a> has been doing most of the work lately) on the http/grpc discussion - most of the work in getting the http api merged is actually reworking bisq itself. Once the bisq code is 'api ready', integrating grpc would be relatively straightforward. Anyone can whip up the grpc code, but getting the bisq code to the point that it's api-suitable without breaking things is long and hard work that manfred and blabno are doing right now, adding grpc into the mix would just be a distraction in my opinion. Even after gRPC is available an http api will probably be useful for a subset of users. If the grpc-web thing works well then the current http api could indeed be replaced by it, why not.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/2253#issuecomment-453997730">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AkpZtuXbsYqs5LcN48B0vwni1fJySbWoks5vDIBTgaJpZM4Z8YEx">mute the thread</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AkpZtqqjv5jDMQjV7h47so-cut02l7HCks5vDIBTgaJpZM4Z8YEx.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/bisq-network/bisq","title":"bisq-network/bisq","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avatar_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@mrosseel in #2253: hi @cbeams, thx for the response, my 2cents (as @blabno has been doing most of the work lately) on the http/grpc discussion - most of the work in getting the http api merged is actually reworking bisq itself. Once the bisq code is 'api ready', integrating grpc would be relatively straightforward. Anyone can whip up the grpc code, but getting the bisq code to the point that it's api-suitable without breaking things is long and hard work that manfred and blabno are doing right now, adding grpc into the mix would just be a distraction in my opinion. Even after gRPC is available an http api will probably be useful for a subset of users. If the grpc-web thing works well then the current http api could indeed be replaced by it, why not."}],"action":{"name":"View Pull Request","url":"https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/2253#issuecomment-453997730"}}}</script>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/2253#issuecomment-453997730",
"url": "https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/2253#issuecomment-453997730",
"name": "View Pull Request"
},
"description": "View this Pull Request on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>