Doc with plans for converting core to C++

1 files changed, 54 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/core/moving-to-c++.md b/doc/core/moving-to-c++.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..33c3cfa0e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/core/moving-to-c++.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Moving gRPC core to C++
+
+October 2017
+
+ctiller, markdroth, vjpai
+
+## Background and Goal
+
+gRPC core was originally written in C89 for several reasons (possibility of
+kernel integration, ease of wrapping, compiler support, etc). Over time, this
+was changed to C99 as all relevant compilers in active use came to support C99
+effectively. Now, gRPC core is C++ (although the code is still idiomatically C
+code) with C linkage for public functions. Throughout all of these transitions,
+the public header files are committed to remain in C89.
+
+The goal now is to make gRPC core true idiomatic C++ compatible with
+[Google's C++ style guide](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html).
+
+## Constraints
+
+- No use of standard library
+  - Standard library makes wrapping difficult/impossible and also reduces platform portability
+  - This takes precedence over using C++ style guide
+- But lambdas are ok
+- As are third-party libraries that meet our build requirements (such as many parts of abseil)
+- There will be some C++ features that don't work
+  - `new` and `delete`
+  - pure virtual functions are not allowed because the message that prints out "Pure Virtual Function called" is part of the standard library
+    - Make a `#define GRPC_ABSTRACT {GPR_ASSERT(false);}` instead of `= 0;`
+- The sanity for making sure that we don't depend on libstdc++ is that at least some tests should explicitly not include it
+  - Most tests can migrate to use gtest
+    - There are tremendous # of code paths that can now be exposed to unit tests because of the use of gtest and C++
+  - But at least some tests should not use gtest
+
+
+## Roadmap
+
+- What should be the phases of getting code converted to idiomatic C++
+  - Opportunistically do leaf code that other parts don't depend on
+  - Spend a little time deciding how to do non-leaf stuff that isn't central or polymorphic (e.g., timer, call combiner)
+  - For big central or polymorphic interfaces, actually do an API review (for things like transport, filter API, endpoint, closure, exec_ctx, ...) .
+    - Core internal changes don't need a gRFC, but core surface changes do
+    - But an API review should include at least a PR with the header change and tests to use it before it gets used more broadly
+  - iomgr polling for POSIX is a gray area whether it's a leaf or central
+- What is the schedule?
+  - In Q4 2017, if some stuff happens opportunistically, great; otherwise ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
+  - More updates as team time becomes available and committed to this project
+
+## Implications for C++ API and wrapped languages
+
+- For C++ structs, switch to `using` when possible (e.g., Slice, ByteBuffer, ...)
+- Can we get wrapped languages to a point where we can statically link C++? This will take a year in probability but that would allow the use of `std::`
+  - Are there other environments that don't support std library, like maybe Android NDK?
+    - Probably, that might push things out to 18 months