5 ms·

We've been using Actix. We evaluated several frameworks and liked the model that Actix has and also its relative maturity (for example documentation / examples

by cjg 5y ago

We've been using Actix. We evaluated several frameworks and liked the model that Actix has and also its relative maturity (for example documentation / examples). It has been pretty straightforward to work with - including doing things like custom authentication and REST endpoints that dynamically exist. For the drama, I guess you are talking about the situation that used to exist where Actix had hundreds of unsafe blocks. That's pretty much resolved now, with perhaps a handful of performance critical unsafe blocks left.

ibraheemdev 5y ago
Yes, Actix today is much different than Actix from a couple years ago. All the unsafe, save a necessary few has been removed, and the architecture switched from an actor model, to a finagle/tower inspired service model.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > and the architecture switched from an actor model, to a finagle/tower inspired service model Then they really should think about changing their name, seeing as actix the broader low-level framework is supposed to be all about Actors.
  - ibraheemdev 5y ago
    A name change would have been ideal, but the library was already mature and widely used that it was decided a name change was not worth it.
  - iudqnolq 5y ago
    Actix the actor framework is essentially dead at this point, I expect eventually it'll be the other way around: "you should change the name of your actor framework, it's confusing given the name of the web framework"
- therockhead 5y ago
  Any references to this architecture? The only finagle I aware of is http://twitter.github.io/finagle/ http://twitter.github.io/finagle/ but it's a asynchronous RPC framework and it's not clear to me how it applies to Actix web.
brundolf 5y ago
For the drama, I was talking about this: https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/21/rust_actix_web_framework_maintainer_quits/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/21/rust_actix_web_framew... I'm not passing any judgements, I just know that people were somewhat worried about the future of the project after its creator very publicly washed their hands of it. Sounds like it's still going, which is good to hear

by cjg 5y ago

ibraheemdev 5y ago

Yes, Actix today is much different than Actix from a couple years ago. All the unsafe, save a necessary few has been removed, and the architecture switched from an actor model, to a finagle/tower inspired service model.

zozbot234 5y ago
> and the architecture switched from an actor model, to a finagle/tower inspired service model Then they really should think about changing their name, seeing as actix the broader low-level framework is supposed to be all about Actors.
- ibraheemdev 5y ago
  A name change would have been ideal, but the library was already mature and widely used that it was decided a name change was not worth it.
- iudqnolq 5y ago
  Actix the actor framework is essentially dead at this point, I expect eventually it'll be the other way around: "you should change the name of your actor framework, it's confusing given the name of the web framework"
therockhead 5y ago
Any references to this architecture? The only finagle I aware of is http://twitter.github.io/finagle/ http://twitter.github.io/finagle/ but it's a asynchronous RPC framework and it's not clear to me how it applies to Actix web.

brundolf 5y ago

For the drama, I was talking about this: https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/21/rust_actix_web_framework_maintainer_quits/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/21/rust_actix_web_framew... I'm not passing any judgements, I just know that people were somewhat worried about the future of the project after its creator very publicly washed their hands of it. Sounds like it's still going, which is good to hear