Yes, this class would only be used with protobuf. I like your suggested rename to GrpcProtoBufferReader, and I will incorporate that change before merging.
As of now, the the newly public classes are only being used by our codegen, which is already proto dependent. We will ensure that any code not using the generated code does not pick proto dependency. On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 6:33:40 PM UTC-8, Christopher Warrington - MSFT wrote: > > Looking at the implementation, this inherits from > ::grpc::protobuf::io::ZeroCopyOutputStream, > which implies a dependency on protobuf. > > Is that the case? > * If so, should this be called, say, GrpcProtoBufferReader instead? > * If this isn't used by the client of gRPC, can building and linking > with proto be omitted? > > As someone who uses gRPC with a different serialization library, I'd like > to be able to not have to build or link with protobuf unless I'm using > things explicitly implemented in terms of proto messages, like channel > tracing. > > -- > Christopher Warrington > Microsoft Corp. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to grpc-io@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/cdd82289-f3e7-49d5-8e80-d78ceb3a7816%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
