3 ms·
I'm really not a fan of Caddy. It tries to be too smart and make things simple for users, which means that the second something goes wrong or you step out of th
by sofixa 2y ago
I'm really not a fan of Caddy. It tries to be too smart and make things simple for users, which means that the second something goes wrong or you step out of the expected box, you get weird behaviour which is hard to debug.
Fun example from last week, a colleague was trying to try out ACME with a custom ACME server, and configured it. For some reason Caddy was not using it and instead used its own internal cert issuer, even if explicitly told to use the ACME provider as configured. Turns out that if you use the .local domain, Caddy will insist on using its own cert issuer even if there's an ACME provider configured. Does that make sense? Yeah, somewhat, but it's the kind of weird implicit behaviour that makes me mistrust it.
My go-tos are nginx for static stuff, Traefik for dynamic stuff.
- vgb2k18 2y agoI bought into Caddy last year for its simplicity. Loved it, from the moment I saw the off-horizontal default page. I switched back to nginx last month because, like you said, I stepped outside of the expected box. Skill issue? Maybe... I transferred my gunvicorn webapp from WAN to LAN. No more dotcom, just 10.x.x.x ip. To say Caddy didn't like it: error messages were non-specific. Community knowledge (ie, stack overflow etc) was lacking. Then nginx.. It worked perfect with almost default config. Skill-issue or Caddy issue, the point is: Caddy is simpler sometimes.
- mholt 2y agoWhat was the config? It should never override explicit configuration...