ngrok VS golang-standards/project-layout

ngrok 1.0 - Original version of ngrok. No longer developed in favor of the commercial 2.0 version.

Thanks for the history. I maintain this list[0], and wasn't aware of OG localtunnel, likely because there's a somewhat newer and now more popular project with the same name[1]. You appear to be correct on timing. Here's the earliest commits on GitHub for each of the projects:

OG localtunnel (2010): https://github.com/progrium/localtunnel/tree/fb82920d9d3e538...

Other localtunnel (2012): https://github.com/localtunnel/localtunnel/tree/93d62b9dbb9f...

ngrok (2012): https://github.com/inconshreveable/ngrok/tree/8f4795ecac7f92...

I'll see that OG localtunnel gets added to the list for posterity.

[0]: https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling

[1]: https://github.com/localtunnel/localtunnel

ngrok

if you're worried about the line "ngrok captures and analyzes all traffic over the tunnel for later inspection and replay" in https://github.com/inconshreveable/ngrok, I'd say that's a valid concern but not for ssh if you make sure the client knows what the host key is and does not accept a different one

Looks like it's open source so it could be just a fork away https://github.com/inconshreveable/ngrok

To get a fix domain, we can deploy HTTP tunnel in our own server. ngrok also provides an open source version for server side deployment. But it is old 1.x version and not recommended to deploy at production with some serious reliability issues.

I ended up inspired by ngork structure here: https://github.com/inconshreveable/ngrok it doesn't really work well with go modules, since i will end up running project like this:

Maybe https://github.com/inconshreveable/ngrok/issues/408

In Go, inconshreveable/ngrok and coyove/goflyway is well known, especially ngrok is popular among developers as a SaaS service.

cmd: here where we will leave the main.go that starts our app.

> https://github.com/golang-standards/project-layout

The name of the repo is really and intentionally misleading. rsc filled an issue there to point this out, but the repo maintainer just disabled issues altogether so now no one can see it.

Even when it would not have such parasitic name, many seasoned Go programmers, me included, consider the self-proclaimed "Standard Go project Layout" as the opposite of what is good and advisable.

Unfortunately, the name just works, so it is being recommended all over the Internet since its inception.

Your comment makes it look as if you're saying you hate the Go development team, but it seems that isn't the case.

I get a little of what you're saying, I wouldn't say I hate anyone, but I strongly dislike how a lot of projects are organized. I think a lot stems from https://github.com/golang-standards/project-layout , which pretended to be standard and was so (ab)used one of the creators opened an issue about it. If you look at the actual Go src, it's much, much cleaner.

So you don't get blind sided for self proclaimed "standards" that are not

I am writing a project that has two components: a CLI and a library. I've organised the project as follows (as per organisation instructions):

Familiarity with the standard Golang project structure, which you can find here.

I've been learning how to build web applications using different frameworks and languages for a while now, such as Laravel with its MVC architecture and Node.js following the 'Hapi.js Way'. As I'm trying to create a new portfolio project using Go, I found myself contemplating over the ideal project structure. I wanted something that not only aligns with the standard Go project layout, but also makes the code both easy to write and understand. That's when I stumbled upon the concept of Hexagonal Architecture, as showcased in Netflix's engineering blog. The idea of seamlessly swapping infrastructures with minimal code changes fascinated me, and I decided to implement it in my new project.