I’m a recent CS graduate. During the past few months I wrote BinaryRPC, an open-source RPC framework in modern C++20 focused on low-latency, binary WebSocket messaging.
Why I built it * Wanted first-class session support, pluggable QoS levels and a simple middleware chain (global, specific, multi handler) without extra JSON/XML parsing. * Easy developer experience
A quick feature list * Binary WebSocket frames – minimal overhead * Built-in session layer (login / reconnect / heartbeat) * QoS1 / QoS2 with automatic ACK & retry * Plugin system – rooms, msgpack, etc. can be added in one line * Thread-safe core: RAII + folly
Still early (solo project), so any feedback on design, concurrency model or missing must-have features would help a lot.
Thanks for reading!
also see "Chat Server in 5 Minutes with BinaryRPC": https://medium.com/@efecanerdem0907/building-a-chat-server-i...
jayd16•2h ago
efecan0•2h ago
* Works everywhere today (browsers, LB, PaaS) with zero extra setup. * One upgrade -> binary frames; no gRPC/proto toolchain or HTTP/3 infra needed. * Simple reliability: TCP handles ordering; I add optional QoS2 on top. * Lets me focus on session/room/middleware features first; transport is swappable later.
QUIC / gRPC-HTTP/3 is on the roadmap once the higher-level API stabilises.
inetknght•2h ago
- gRPC is not a library I would trust with safety or privacy. It's used a lot but isn't a great product. I have personally found several fuckups in gRPC and protobuf code resulting in application crashes or risks of remote code execution. Their release tagging is dogshit, their implementation makes you think the standard library and boost libraries are easy to read and understand, and neither takes SDLC lifecycles seriously since there aren't sanitizer builds nor fuzzing regime nor static analysis running against new commits last time I checked.
- http/3 using UDP sends performance into the crater, generally requiring _every_ packet to reach the CPU in userspace instead of being handled in the kernel or even directly by the network interface hardware
- multiplexing isn't needed by most websocket applications
efecan0•2h ago
I am a recent CS graduate and I work on this project alone. I chose WebSocket over TCP because it is small, easy to read, and works everywhere without extra tools. gRPC + HTTP/3 is powerful but adds many libraries and more code to learn.
When real users need QUIC or multiplexing, I can change the transport later. Your feedback helps me a lot.
reactordev•1h ago
I totally understand your reasoning behind leaning on websockets. You can test with a data channel in a browser app. But if we are talking low-latency, Superman fast, modern C++, RPC and forgeddaboutit. Look into handling an initial payload with credential negotiation outside of HTTP 1.1.
efecan0•1h ago
My current roadmap is:
1. Keep WebSocket as the “zero-config / browser-friendly” default. 2. Add a raw-TCP transport with a single-frame handshake: [auth-token | caps] → ACK → binary stream starts. 3. Later, test a QUIC version for mobile / lossy networks.
So users can choose: * plug-and-play (WebSocket) * ultra-low-latency (raw TCP)
Thanks for the nudge this will go on the transport roadmap.
tgma•41m ago
Would be great if you report such remote code executions to the authors/Google. I am sure they handle CVEs etc. There has been a security audit like https://github.com/grpc/grpc/tree/master/doc/grpc_security_a...
> there aren't sanitizer builds nor fuzzing regime nor static analysis running against new commits last time I checked.
Are you making shit up as you go? I randomly picked a recently merged commit and this is the list of test suites ran on the pull request. As far as I recall, this has been the practice for at least 8 years+ (note the MSAN, ASAN, TSAN etc.)
I can see various fuzzers in the code base so that claim is also unsubstantiated https://github.com/grpc/grpc/tree/f5c26aec2904fddffb70471cbc...
efecan0•36m ago
cherryteastain•2h ago
[1] https://grpc.io/docs/languages/cpp/callback/
jeffbee•2h ago
efecan0•2h ago