3 ms·

This doesn't seem to be on the right level of abstraction - why replacing the entire web server, adding dynamic translating (compilation) as a main feature?

by tsenkov 13y ago

sintaxi 13y ago
I look at it this way, we basically have two types of web servers, static and full-stack web frameworks. What if all you want is a static web server but you need a way for your files to share a common layout? If you don't have any server side compilation a full-stack framework is overkill. We could use a static site generator such as Jekyll and then put behind a static web server but now we have ugly urls, no 404 pages, and way more dependencies than needed. The simple fact is a static web site on its own is not good enough but its 95% there. Using a full-stack framework is overkill, and needing an Static Site Generator just seems counter productive when considering simplicity is one of the biggest upsides to shipping static assets. There is no good reason for static web servers to do a little extra for you like smarter redirects, clean urls, layouts/partials. This makes sense to me considering the direction we are headed.
- michaelmior 13y ago
  Why shouldn't I call Harp a static site generator? I understand it's more than that, but a SSG is one use case.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Partly because few if any static generators talk to clients over a TCP socket; mostly, I suspect, because people tend to hear "static site generator" and immediately think "oh, boy, here's another goober who's going to try to push his bizarre little pile of shell scripts on me."
  - sintaxi 13y ago
    Harp does work great as a Static Site Generator but the reason why we avoid that term is that there have been several cases of people using Harp as a SSG by running the compile step each time they save a file. This is how they expected it to work (likely because of their experience with Jekyll). It has even gone so far as someone requesting a way to "preview" the compiled output not realizing that not only can harp serve a preview, it removes the need to generate the compiled output all together. It really comes down to the mental modal of how people look at the tool and how they expect it to behave. Avoiding the term SSG has helped with that.
lobster_johnson 13y ago
It doesn't need to replace the web server. You can let Nginx be the main web server and use the proxy module to send traffic to Harp.

This doesn't seem to be on the right level of abstraction - why replacing the entire web server, adding dynamic translating (compilation) as a main feature?

by tsenkov 13y ago

This doesn't seem to be on the right level of abstraction - why replacing the entire web server, adding dynamic translating (compilation) as a main feature?

sintaxi 13y ago

I look at it this way, we basically have two types of web servers, static and full-stack web frameworks. What if all you want is a static web server but you need a way for your files to share a common layout? If you don't have any server side compilation a full-stack framework is overkill. We could use a static site generator such as Jekyll and then put behind a static web server but now we have ugly urls, no 404 pages, and way more dependencies than needed. The simple fact is a static web site on its own is not good enough but its 95% there. Using a full-stack framework is overkill, and needing an Static Site Generator just seems counter productive when considering simplicity is one of the biggest upsides to shipping static assets. There is no good reason for static web servers to do a little extra for you like smarter redirects, clean urls, layouts/partials. This makes sense to me considering the direction we are headed.

michaelmior 13y ago
Why shouldn't I call Harp a static site generator? I understand it's more than that, but a SSG is one use case.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Partly because few if any static generators talk to clients over a TCP socket; mostly, I suspect, because people tend to hear "static site generator" and immediately think "oh, boy, here's another goober who's going to try to push his bizarre little pile of shell scripts on me."
- sintaxi 13y ago
  Harp does work great as a Static Site Generator but the reason why we avoid that term is that there have been several cases of people using Harp as a SSG by running the compile step each time they save a file. This is how they expected it to work (likely because of their experience with Jekyll). It has even gone so far as someone requesting a way to "preview" the compiled output not realizing that not only can harp serve a preview, it removes the need to generate the compiled output all together. It really comes down to the mental modal of how people look at the tool and how they expect it to behave. Avoiding the term SSG has helped with that.

lobster_johnson 13y ago

It doesn't need to replace the web server. You can let Nginx be the main web server and use the proxy module to send traffic to Harp.