3 ms·

OK, so 're-implement' the wheel. Using a variety of unrelated, dubiously-updated libraries. I'm still not sure what the advantage of that is over using perhap

by nkozyra 10y ago

OK, so 're-implement' the wheel. Using a variety of unrelated, dubiously-updated libraries. I'm still not sure what the advantage of that is over using perhaps the most reliable, certainly most-used web server as a proxy in front of your app. I'm open to convincing, though.

weberc2 10y ago
How is filling out struct fields more complex than filling out config files? The principle advantage is system simplicity--everything deploys in a single file, no network topology to troubleshoot, fewer moving parts, no new highly-configurable tool to master. If the quality of those libraries is as poor as you suppose, then take NGINX by all means. I don't see any reason to make those assumptions, however. I don't mean to overstate the advantages--I think both solutions are fine; neither will make or break your operation.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  It's more than filling out a few structs, though. Traffic splitting or caching via NGINX can literally be done in a handful of lines. No go gets, no middleware and it's well tested, mature and backed by software that powers a majority of the web. I use go net/http every day, in production. I trust it, but NGINX provides so much more battle tested functionality out of the box.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    > It's more than filling out a few structs, though. How do you know how many lines are required to configure hypothetical middleware? > No go gets How is static compilation worse than `apt-get install` or `docker run`? > No middleware It's another process... why would running another process be better than middleware? > it's well tested, mature and backed by software that powers a majority of the web. Granted. It seems like this is the only clear win for NGINX, and it may well change if Go libraries mature. Time will tell.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      > How do you know how many lines are required to configure hypothetical middleware? Primarily through experience. Happy to be shown otherwise. Middleware usually takes a bit more configuration than that. > Granted. It seems like this is the only clear win for NGINX, and it may well change if Go libraries mature. Time will tell. We can quibble over whether it's the "only" win, but even so, it's a very, very big win. It's a single point of failure that handles a lot of features you'd have to replicate with various packages that lack the kind of support, maturity and community that NGINX has.
    - 234dd57d2c8db 10y ago
      You're missing the sysadmin angle of this entirely. Nginx has amazing tooling around load balancing, configuration mgmt, multiple languages, logging options, rewrite rules, rate limiting, file upload size tuning, HTTP tuning in general, the list goes on and on. What if your site needs to support multiple backends like a JVM app, a wsgi app, and an old crufty cgi app. You gonna write backends for all that shit too in Go? Sorry but I'm not going to be writing ansible code that modifies structs inside of some program then compiles said program. No thank you that sounds like crazy town. Also other sysadmins and infrastructure engineers will actually know how things work and won't have to go reading the source code for some crazy Go app program at 2am that also is a webserver for some reason? Separation of concerns, use it!!
      - weberc2 10y ago
        > You gonna write backends for all that shit too in Go? The discussion is scoped to a single Go application. No one is proposing replacing NGINX with Go (or anything else) for JVM apps. > won't have to go reading the source code for some crazy Go app program at 2am that also is a webserver for some reason? This is a rephrasing of the question I posed earlier--is it easier to manage configuration in Go source code or NGINX config files. > Separation of concerns, use it!! Concerns can be separated without being in distinct processes or implemented by distinct programmers or implemented in distinct programming languages.
        10y ago
- throwaw12ay 10y ago
  > How is filling out struct fields more complex It's also about reproducing all the business logic provided by nginx, not just configuration. You can't pretend like net/http package gives you everything ngnix provides, that's a lie.

by nkozyra 10y ago

weberc2 10y ago

How is filling out struct fields more complex than filling out config files? The principle advantage is system simplicity--everything deploys in a single file, no network topology to troubleshoot, fewer moving parts, no new highly-configurable tool to master. If the quality of those libraries is as poor as you suppose, then take NGINX by all means. I don't see any reason to make those assumptions, however. I don't mean to overstate the advantages--I think both solutions are fine; neither will make or break your operation.

nkozyra 10y ago
It's more than filling out a few structs, though. Traffic splitting or caching via NGINX can literally be done in a handful of lines. No go gets, no middleware and it's well tested, mature and backed by software that powers a majority of the web. I use go net/http every day, in production. I trust it, but NGINX provides so much more battle tested functionality out of the box.
- weberc2 10y ago
  > It's more than filling out a few structs, though. How do you know how many lines are required to configure hypothetical middleware? > No go gets How is static compilation worse than `apt-get install` or `docker run`? > No middleware It's another process... why would running another process be better than middleware? > it's well tested, mature and backed by software that powers a majority of the web. Granted. It seems like this is the only clear win for NGINX, and it may well change if Go libraries mature. Time will tell.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    > How do you know how many lines are required to configure hypothetical middleware? Primarily through experience. Happy to be shown otherwise. Middleware usually takes a bit more configuration than that. > Granted. It seems like this is the only clear win for NGINX, and it may well change if Go libraries mature. Time will tell. We can quibble over whether it's the "only" win, but even so, it's a very, very big win. It's a single point of failure that handles a lot of features you'd have to replicate with various packages that lack the kind of support, maturity and community that NGINX has.
  - 234dd57d2c8db 10y ago
    You're missing the sysadmin angle of this entirely. Nginx has amazing tooling around load balancing, configuration mgmt, multiple languages, logging options, rewrite rules, rate limiting, file upload size tuning, HTTP tuning in general, the list goes on and on. What if your site needs to support multiple backends like a JVM app, a wsgi app, and an old crufty cgi app. You gonna write backends for all that shit too in Go? Sorry but I'm not going to be writing ansible code that modifies structs inside of some program then compiles said program. No thank you that sounds like crazy town. Also other sysadmins and infrastructure engineers will actually know how things work and won't have to go reading the source code for some crazy Go app program at 2am that also is a webserver for some reason? Separation of concerns, use it!!
    - weberc2 10y ago
      > You gonna write backends for all that shit too in Go? The discussion is scoped to a single Go application. No one is proposing replacing NGINX with Go (or anything else) for JVM apps. > won't have to go reading the source code for some crazy Go app program at 2am that also is a webserver for some reason? This is a rephrasing of the question I posed earlier--is it easier to manage configuration in Go source code or NGINX config files. > Separation of concerns, use it!! Concerns can be separated without being in distinct processes or implemented by distinct programmers or implemented in distinct programming languages.
      - 10y ago
throwaw12ay 10y ago
> How is filling out struct fields more complex It's also about reproducing all the business logic provided by nginx, not just configuration. You can't pretend like net/http package gives you everything ngnix provides, that's a lie.