3 ms·
Caddy been a breeze to use, bit sucky model with "we have thousands of binaries depending on what combination of plugins you want" instead of a proper plugin sy
by embedding-shape 6mo ago
Caddy been a breeze to use, bit sucky model with "we have thousands of binaries depending on what combination of plugins you want" instead of a proper plugin system, but if you're building it from source, it's pretty nifty and simple anyways.
- eikenberry 6mo agoRecompiling with the features you want is a great model for a free software project. So much simpler to write and maintain compared to a plugin system that it really makes more sense in a lot of cases.
- seanw444 6mo agoCan often also be noticeably more performant.
- vbernat 6mo agonginx had this defect for a long time too!
- dboreham 6mo agoGo doesn't support runtime linking, which is why "no plugins" (even though Go docs claim it does, no it doesn't).
- sharperguy 6mo agoI've switched to using traefik from caddy. For simple use cases it's a little more verbose in the configuration, but for more involved things like multiple load balancing backends, rewriting paths and headers and so on I've found it really good.
- pjmlp 6mo agoThat is a consequence of static linking, and an abandoned plugin package that hasn't yet been removed due to backwards compatibility. People keep forgetting that with static linking they are back to 1980's IPC for application extensions, or building from scratch every time they need to reconfigure the application.