4 ms·

Different ports. Don't add unnecessary complexity unless it's strictly necessary.

vaylian 2y ago
Or, if you want to get a bit more fancy, use different IP addresses. For IPv4 you have the entire 127.0-255.0-255.1-255 subnet available to you. For IPv6 you can add additional addresses to your existing network interface.
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  I use the 127.xxx.xxx.xxx extensively for local development and add entries in /etc/hosts so I get dns resolution as well. It works great.
  - KronisLV 2y ago
    I wonder why there aren't super popular solutions for managing hosts entries in an automated way for development, since if you need to share entries with other people for a bunch of projects, then adding them manually is cumbersome and running a separate DNS server just for development is not less so, whereas using public DNS records set to local addresses seems a bit dirty. In other words, where's: hostman apply Hostfile hostman clear Hostfile
    - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
      https://github.com/2ndalpha/gasmask https://github.com/2ndalpha/gasmask did this for Macs but I've found that I just don't need it. A static file is fine. I often have old entries in it that I don't use anymore but they don't harm anything being there so they stick around until I do a cleanup pass.
xlii 2y ago
That’s a huge trap. Yes, it’s simple at the beginning but it takes a lot of effort to move to non-port based solution for anything. Cuts are small at the beginning (oh, this service should use other PostgreSQL, so lets have two - oh but I my code doesn’t specify port in an config file, so let me put on direnv - oops IDE didn’t pick up env file) but they grow quickly. Containers are standard nowadays and allow going for Kubernetes if one wants. With solutions like Justfile or Taskfile its reasonably ergonomic.
- armarr 2y ago
  Depends on which type of scale you are running. And it's not worth overengineering a project for a scale you hope to achieve some day. It will take away engineering resources from building something that provides value today
- SkyPuncher 2y ago
  It’s a problem future me will always, happily solve. If my system is large enough and complex enough, it _likely_ means the business behind it is successful. I will always solve “dumb problems from past me” for a successful business than the alternative of not having a business.
  - xlii 2y ago
    I agree to the principle in general, but non-reproduceble execution environment with free-for-all internet access is unimaginable time sink. Business tends to topple on unreliable promises or annoying customers through the bad tech and I’ve seen a few that are gone because of it. Unicorns won’t fall on such problems but semi-good Average Joe’s product might. No one is going to hear about it even if such products make bulk of software in global code volume. Containers (on low technical level) are simple, performant and scale well.

Or, if you want to get a bit more fancy, use different IP addresses. For IPv4 you have the entire 127.0-255.0-255.1-255 subnet available to you. For IPv6 you can add additional addresses to your existing network interface.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
I use the 127.xxx.xxx.xxx extensively for local development and add entries in /etc/hosts so I get dns resolution as well. It works great.
- KronisLV 2y ago
  I wonder why there aren't super popular solutions for managing hosts entries in an automated way for development, since if you need to share entries with other people for a bunch of projects, then adding them manually is cumbersome and running a separate DNS server just for development is not less so, whereas using public DNS records set to local addresses seems a bit dirty. In other words, where's: hostman apply Hostfile hostman clear Hostfile
  - unsnap_biceps 2y ago
    https://github.com/2ndalpha/gasmask https://github.com/2ndalpha/gasmask did this for Macs but I've found that I just don't need it. A static file is fine. I often have old entries in it that I don't use anymore but they don't harm anything being there so they stick around until I do a cleanup pass.

xlii 2y ago

That’s a huge trap. Yes, it’s simple at the beginning but it takes a lot of effort to move to non-port based solution for anything. Cuts are small at the beginning (oh, this service should use other PostgreSQL, so lets have two - oh but I my code doesn’t specify port in an config file, so let me put on direnv - oops IDE didn’t pick up env file) but they grow quickly. Containers are standard nowadays and allow going for Kubernetes if one wants. With solutions like Justfile or Taskfile its reasonably ergonomic.

armarr 2y ago
Depends on which type of scale you are running. And it's not worth overengineering a project for a scale you hope to achieve some day. It will take away engineering resources from building something that provides value today
SkyPuncher 2y ago
It’s a problem future me will always, happily solve. If my system is large enough and complex enough, it _likely_ means the business behind it is successful. I will always solve “dumb problems from past me” for a successful business than the alternative of not having a business.
- xlii 2y ago
  I agree to the principle in general, but non-reproduceble execution environment with free-for-all internet access is unimaginable time sink. Business tends to topple on unreliable promises or annoying customers through the bad tech and I’ve seen a few that are gone because of it. Unicorns won’t fall on such problems but semi-good Average Joe’s product might. No one is going to hear about it even if such products make bulk of software in global code volume. Containers (on low technical level) are simple, performant and scale well.