Adriano Santos

@bitwalker I have a question just out of curiosity. Would it be possible to continue the project taking into account only the x86_64 architecture while WASM does not solidify?

> That said, even if it isn't pragmatic, I do think there is value in continuing to work on the project without Wasm. There are a handful of areas in...

I still have a very vague idea, but for me I divide this into two parts, which would be: 1. A mechanism to ensure that the administrator defines which users...

> @sleipnir what's the status on this PR? Unfortunately I couldn't finish the implementation yet. But I should have availability in a couple of weeks. Two or less.

> Are there any updates for this feature support? I've been very busy at work and my personal project for the last few months, so I haven't been able to...

> Hey everyone. I've been following this issue and @sleipnir 's work for a bit, and started playing on his branch to see if I could contribute to the work....

> I think going with something in the main library would be easier to maintain in the sense that changes can be applied atomically through all parts. There's the downside...

> I think that's the way to go. A new repo, and package, delegated to just do reflection would also allow services running in previous versions of the `elixir-grpc` to...

> > .... I think we can define a contract in elixir-grpc and a way to explicitly configure the implementation of that contract via the core library, that way customers...

> > I like the idea of having a default implementation + overridable behaviour > > I'm confused as to how this would work. The behavior is dictated by the...