<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>协议设计 - 标签 - 研发日志 · R&amp;D Log</title><link>https://rd163.visword.com/tags/%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE%E8%AE%BE%E8%AE%A1/</link><description>协议设计 - 标签 - 研发日志 · R&amp;D Log</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>zh-CN</language><managingEditor>whutluohui@gmail.com (小智晖)</managingEditor><webMaster>whutluohui@gmail.com (小智晖)</webMaster><copyright>本作品采用知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0 国际许可协议进行许可。</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://rd163.visword.com/tags/%E5%8D%8F%E8%AE%AE%E8%AE%BE%E8%AE%A1/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>trpc/brpc/grpc 协议设计对比</title><link>https://rd163.visword.com/posts/proto_disign_for_trpc_grpc_brpc/</link><pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0800</pubDate><author><name>小智晖</name></author><guid>https://rd163.visword.com/posts/proto_disign_for_trpc_grpc_brpc/</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>在微服务与高性能后端场景中，RPC(Remote Procedure Call，远程过程调用)框架的协议设计直接决定了吞吐、延迟、可观测性和生态兼容性。本文梳理三套具有代表性的 RPC 协议：腾讯开源的 <strong>tRPC</strong>、Apache <strong>bRPC</strong>(baidu_std)以及 Google 主导的 <strong>gRPC</strong>,从协议帧格式、通信模式和传输层三个维度做对比。</p>]]></description></item></channel></rss>