5 ms·
> And yet we have only a handful Apache, nginx, haproxy, envoy, traefik, and probably dozens more that aren't on the top of my head.
by sciurus 7y ago
> And yet we have only a handful
Apache, nginx, haproxy, envoy, traefik, and probably dozens more that aren't on the top of my head.
- nkozyra 7y agoYou literally listed a handful ;)
- SteveNuts 7y agoFabio, IIS, Varnish, Kong, Squid, lighttpd, emacs (probably).
- lugg 7y agohttps://stackshare.io/stackups/emacs-vs-haproxy https://stackshare.io/stackups/emacs-vs-haproxy
- elcritch 7y agoActually Emacs as a dev proxy like Charles Proxy could be handy... ;) Also there exists an http module for emacs: https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/HttpServer https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/HttpServer
- AdieuToLogic 7y ago> > > And yet we have only a handful > > Apache, nginx, haproxy, envoy, traefik, and probably dozens more that aren't on the top of my head. > You literally listed a handful ;) How many solutions to a problem are needed when the problem is well-defined before there is no longer a need to grab for more?
- hombre_fatal 7y agoThere are probably thousands on Github for the use of teeth-cutting like in the blogpost. I've made one. You just lose interest when you impl the easy/naive stuff and need to actually use a real solution in production.
- hinkley 7y agoCmon. Does anybody use Apache anymore? We should send them a care package if so, poor bastards. Ingress routers are something else. They balance load for cloud traffic, but can they act just as reverse proxies, right? Linkerd and Traefik are a different tool than haproxy.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoApache's httpd is perfectly good as a web server, and passable as a proxy. I can't say that it'd be my first choice, but I'm not aware that there's any special reason not to use it.
- hinkley 7y agoThe Byzantine config file syntax was a common complaint shared by the early defectors to nginx. If I never have to edit that conf file again it will be too soon.