Consider removing optional from grpc-services or update the docs to raise more awareness

[lobaorn-bitso]

Hi team,

the issue is that although the sample rely explicitly in the grpc-services , the out-of-the-box experience could be better if either the documentation clearly states the need for it when using GrpcHealth or simply that similar to the client-starter that relies transitively in grpc-stub, the server-starter could rely transitively on grpc-services instead of making it optional.

And then if anyone would not need it, could do the exclusion when declaring the dependency. That is because I would assume that anyone using the server-starter would expect that ootb it would enable GrpcHealth as well.

But if for any given reason the optional must stay, at least the docs could be more explicitly to avoid investing time chasing the reason why the GrpcHealth was not available when starting a server.

Thank you in advance.

[onobc]

Thanks for creating the issue @lobaorn-bitso ,

We will discuss this at our next team meeting.

But if for any given reason the optional must stay, at least the docs could be more explicitly to avoid investing time chasing the reason why the GrpcHealth was not available when starting a server.

Agreed, even if we do not change the optionality, we should make sure the docs are clear on this point.

[onobc]

Hi @lobaorn-bitso , the team met today and we would like to keep the optionality but we will definitely highlight in the docs the need for adding this dependency in order to use reflection or health services.

[lobaorn-bitso]

Thanks a lot @onobc I will keep an eye for the updated docs then to give feedback :)

[onobc]

You are very welcome @lobaorn-bitso . I will be sure to link the PR to this issue of course so you will see the update and can give it a review.