provisioning-backend VS golang-standards/project-layout

I wrote a makefile which installs tools into PROJDIR/bin which is also in the gitignore.

Extremely simple in go, you just implement what is called Doer interface (one method). Here is an example from one of my projects, it is a simple decorator with logger in this case. Then you just initialize the client with this instance, in my project it is slightly more complex because I also setup OpenTelemetry but you get the idea.

Authentication and authorization is typically just a middleware which is essentially a function. Recently I implemented a RBAC functionality into our microservice which does not use any big framework. On our platform we have a RBAC service we need to call via REST. As you can see the whole patch is small if you exclude the generated OpenAPI client.

We use DAO/DAL in our app and I ran into the same problem - DAO does not work well with transactions. We have our own WithTransaction function which is currently only used within one model and that works fine. But the problem appears when we want to do a transaction across several models - that needs to be done in the business (service) layer.

Our project does have extensive makefile broken down into individual files so it is more readable. As you can see, we have targets for database, code quality, modules, testing, client generation, OpenAPI etc. It also has a trivial help:

Here is our code: https://github.com/RHEnVision/provisioning-backend/tree/main/pkg/worker

Our solution is simply one Redis queue, jobs have "type" (string) and are marshalled via Gob (for type safety) and there is no return value from job or error. This makes things extremely easy. We keep statistics (metrics) of job queue size and "in flight" jobs. Here is our implementation, just for inspiration. I suggest to write this on your own: https://github.com/RHEnVision/provisioning-backend/tree/main/pkg/worker

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.