3 ms·

I'm not sure how you can say it's meaningless. It's clearly not just a bunch of babble that you often see in business writing: each of these is a specific, conc

I'm not sure how you can say it's meaningless. It's clearly not just a bunch of babble that you often see in business writing: each of these is a specific, concrete suggestion. I'm also fairly sure it wasn't just one guy's preferences, and in any case those preferences were born out of experience with the early days of the web. I've worked on web services that did not follow those principles as well as ones that do, and it seems pretty clear to me these principles are all more or less correct. In my experience this is now more-or-less best practice* for web services. *with maybe minor exceptions such as accessing secrets from an external vault service.

vemv 4y ago
"12 factor app" is exactly as meaningful as "24 factor app" or "100 factor app", i.e. not at all. Who gets to say how many "factors" are relevant? What's the common thread of the 12 factors?
- lliamander 4y ago
  I'm struggling to understand your criticism. Why the authors decided to put 12 instead of 24 or 100 (or whatever) is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the factors themselves are meaningful. The common thread is covered in the introduction. It's about building services that back web applications in a way that makes it easy to deploy and manage them.