3 ms·

> I disabled nginx on the server and installed Caddy instead. I wonder how a somehow simpler config syntax (Caddyfile) compares to a simpler maintenance system

> I disabled nginx on the server and installed Caddy instead. I wonder how a somehow simpler config syntax (Caddyfile) compares to a simpler maintenance system (apt).

rmoriz 6y ago
Caddy underwent a complete rewrite that also invalidated most of the existing config. Personally I don't see any benefits in using caddy or another non mainstream httpd as it adds more risk to my project with usually very little benefits. Nothing against using it for hobby projects but in production I've migrated back to nginx.
- megous 6y ago
  I had an itch to look at Caddy, after reading the comments, but breaking configuration backwards compatibility is a huge turn off.
  - mholt 6y ago
    v1 was an experiment. v2 is not.
  - miedpo 6y ago
    You should definitely take a look at it - Caddy works fantastically well. To give you an idea about the compatibility differences, it's like the upgrade from Vue.js 2 to Vue.js 3. Some changes to format are necessary for the new architecture. But you can always just run the older version (that's what I do). And swapping to the new one isn't terribly painful if your just using vanilla (for Caddy 1 extensions, which weren't created by the developer himself most of the time, I'm sure Caddy 2 versions will pop up over time).
  - anderspitman 6y ago
    Personally I prefer software that improves (slowly) over time, for at least a couple iterations. It's a balancing act to be sure, and there are diminishing returns to changing things up, but I think very little software comes out of the gate in a >80% optimal form. I haven't found the changes in Caddy's config format to be problematic in the least.
birracerveza 6y ago
It is much simpler, to the point it's a fault. I mean, in 90+% of cases, you just put in your Caddyfile *host* { reverse_proxy 0.0.0.0:*port* } and you get a fast reverse proxy that just works, with letsencrypt enabled by default to boot, nothing to worry about. However, if you find yourself against a service that requires a slightly more advanced configuration, good luck making sense of their opaque configuration, especially since they now went v2 so everything old is out of the window, so if you search for something, chances are it's no good anymore.
anderspitman 6y ago
In my experience, Caddy is much easier than Nginx. The auto TLS alone is worth it.

> I disabled nginx on the server and installed Caddy instead. I wonder how a somehow simpler config syntax (Caddyfile) compares to a simpler maintenance system (apt).

rmoriz 6y ago

Caddy underwent a complete rewrite that also invalidated most of the existing config. Personally I don't see any benefits in using caddy or another non mainstream httpd as it adds more risk to my project with usually very little benefits. Nothing against using it for hobby projects but in production I've migrated back to nginx.

megous 6y ago
I had an itch to look at Caddy, after reading the comments, but breaking configuration backwards compatibility is a huge turn off.
- mholt 6y ago
  v1 was an experiment. v2 is not.
- miedpo 6y ago
  You should definitely take a look at it - Caddy works fantastically well. To give you an idea about the compatibility differences, it's like the upgrade from Vue.js 2 to Vue.js 3. Some changes to format are necessary for the new architecture. But you can always just run the older version (that's what I do). And swapping to the new one isn't terribly painful if your just using vanilla (for Caddy 1 extensions, which weren't created by the developer himself most of the time, I'm sure Caddy 2 versions will pop up over time).
- anderspitman 6y ago
  Personally I prefer software that improves (slowly) over time, for at least a couple iterations. It's a balancing act to be sure, and there are diminishing returns to changing things up, but I think very little software comes out of the gate in a >80% optimal form. I haven't found the changes in Caddy's config format to be problematic in the least.

birracerveza 6y ago

It is much simpler, to the point it's a fault. I mean, in 90+% of cases, you just put in your Caddyfile *host* { reverse_proxy 0.0.0.0:*port* } and you get a fast reverse proxy that just works, with letsencrypt enabled by default to boot, nothing to worry about. However, if you find yourself against a service that requires a slightly more advanced configuration, good luck making sense of their opaque configuration, especially since they now went v2 so everything old is out of the window, so if you search for something, chances are it's no good anymore.

anderspitman 6y ago

In my experience, Caddy is much easier than Nginx. The auto TLS alone is worth it.