restruct VS go-cloud

For me it's mux and my personal router restruct but since mux is not maintained anymore, maybe chi will be my goto for new projects that needs more stability in the api. Since restruct is a router based on structs, which I use for fast prototyping.

Not the best, but after using gorilla mux for routing for a while, I've decided to build my own https://github.com/altlimit/restruct

I've always just use gorilla mux and try to stay close to standard handlers as much as possible and code my request response process. As I've done this multiple times and actually been doing things over and over again I've developed my own router based on structs. Most of the time I develop something that's not going to be public api so I just want to easily build endpoints from struct method without defining new routes. I made https://github.com/altlimit/restruct for it. I also made it flexible so it can do a good amount of routing config. Then with same idea on authentication I made gauth. It's under the same org of that repository. Just to make my development for clients faster while sticking close to standards. I can't find myself using those frameworks that keeps introducing their own context somehow. I did use them before but somehow just doesn't feel right.

github.com/altlimit/restruct

Even when going multi-cloud you can employ different strategies. Vault is definitely one of them, but you can also use federation to exchange one cloud's credentials for another's, giving you the ability to centralize secrets in one of them. You can use a layer of abstraction like GoCloud [0]. You can also build for each cloud separately and decide either not to centralize secrets at all, or build some trivial bespoke tooling to synchronize some of them. I'm not endorsing any of the options, just pointing out that Vault isn't the only one.

https://github.com/google/go-cloud

> If Google started adding Google Cloud specific primitives natively to Go would you call that forward thinking as well?

Go actually ships with a quite forward thinking SQL interface. It's an abstract interface over a DB, and you just import the "driver" that powers it. The driver conforms to a standard interface, so all of them behave roughly the same.

I think this is what everyone wants from Deno/etc - why can't there also be a KV interface that's universal, or a Queue interface that's universal?

People attempted this w/ go [1], where it attempts to use the same nice experience of the SQL logic, but it never seemed to gain traction.

https://gocloud.dev

github.com/google/go-cloud/pubsub package provides a set of interfaces and tools to work with publish/subscribe messaging. This package allows easy communication between independent components by decoupling the sender and the receiver.

I'm guessing this is a reasonable example of what they're using it for? server.go

https://github.com/google/go-cloud probably out of context, but not IaC but agnostic backend development with Go across multiple clouds

The plan is to have a process for generating AWS CDK targeting Lambda (pluggable providers, but start with AWS CDK, because it's what I use), and to use the Google Cloud Development Kit (also called CDK, but not the same) https://github.com/google/go-cloud to abstract the services.

In this post, I will talk about an exciting project maintained by the team that develops the Go language: the Go Cloud Development Kit, also known as the Go CDK.

The API of gocloud.dev, is stable. We are at ariga.io, already use gocloud.dev for internal service, and even in the public for easy adopt multi-clouds provider: https://github.com/ariga/atlas/commit/ef0b0eae65a61375482497ceb9ed9790a469b56e

On Go, which has a community focused on the cloud, there is even GoCloud, a library with a single, common, and high-level API that allows an application to support any of those clouds and even on-premise alternatives for those services. All can be configurable at deploy time by the infrastructure team.