superhighway84 VS zap

https://github.com/gravitl/netmaker

Honorable mention:

SuperHighway84 - more of a Usenet-inspired darknet, but I love the concept + the author's personal website:

https://github.com/mrusme/superhighway84

While I do like the idea behind a P2P E2EE chat, I believe that unless you're willing to invest heavily into OrbitDB and IPFS, this project will stay niche at best.

The performance issues that come along with running OrbitDB/IPFS on a machine, let alone a mobile device, are still significant unfortunately. Adding Electron on top of what is already a heavy-weight application is probably going to make people's devices go brrrrr all the time. Not only that, but I would argue that for instant communication this stack might not be the best idea in terms of performance in first place.

Besides, the way IPFS has been (and still keeps) changing their dozens of libraries doesn't make development particularly smooth either. OrbitDB is always behind the latest IPFS version due to all these changes that are being introduced. Hence unless you're planning to allocate developer time on these two things as well, my guess is that you probably won't have too much fun with your back-end.

The integration with Tor is another thing that will likely be a time drain for developers, as other people here already pointed out, and that will lead to even more performance issues down the line.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea behind this project. However, I feel like the aspirations are unrealisticly high and the actual outcome might be realtively frustrating for the average end-user. Having that said, I would love my gut feeling to be proven wrong!

Disclaimer: I'm the developer of Superhighway84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System#App..., https://github.com/mrusme/superhighway84), a USENET-inspired, uncensorable, decentralized internet discussion system running on IPFS & OrbitDB.

Someone created a Usenet-like thing on IPFS. https://github.com/mrusme/superhighway84

It's kind of dead. IIRC the dev put that on the back burner in favor of a new BBS-like app. https://github.com/mrusme/neonmodem

If anybody wanted to, anybody could start a RLM SuperHighway84 where we could just talk about RLM stuff all day.

SuperHighway84 - Is this handy for organization? I like the usenet-style where it sorts itself if people use proper newsgroup names. If people used a 'youtube.channelname' format at least people could maybe scroll down to channels/videos people are talking about.

In my mind something like superhighway84 would be a better platform, then it's automatically organizing itself to some degree if people post in appropriate newsgroups. People looking for lost youtubers could post in youtube.channelName. That person looking for old VCDs & screeners could post in vcds.screeners.

SuperHighway84 is like a usenet style board where people can create whatever newsgroups they want. Anybody could start a 'Datahoarder' highway.

I like the idea of something like SuperHighway84 for talking about our collections. We could make one called YoutubeGraveyard or something. There's also r/DHExchange

Have you heard of SuperHighway84?

The project currently uses slog package from standard library for logging. But switching to a more advanced logger like zap could offer more flexibility and features.

It's nice to have this in the standard library, but it doesn't solve any existing pain points around structured log metadata and contexts. We use zap [0] and store a zap logger on the request context which allows different parts of the request pipeline to log with things like tenantid, traceId, and correlationId automatically appended. But getting a logger off the context is annoying, leads to inconsistent logging practices, and creates a logger dependency throughout most of our Go code.

[0] https://github.com/uber-go/zap

Kubebuilder, like much of the k8s ecosystem, utilizes zap for logging. Out of the box, the Kubebuilder zap configuration outputs a timestamp for each log, which gets formatted using scientific notation. This makes it difficult for me to read the time of an event just by glancing at it. Personally, I prefer ISO 8601, so let's change it!

What else would you expect from a structured logging package?

To me it absolutely makes sense as the default and standard for 99% of applications, and the API isn't much unlike something like Zap[0] (a popular Go structured logger).

The attributes aren't an "arbitrary" concept, they're a completely normal concept for structured loggers. Groups are maybe less standard, but reasonable nevertheless.

I'm not sure if you're aware that this is specifically a structured logging package. There already is a "simple" logging package[1] in the sodlib, and has been for ages, and isn't particularly fast either to my knowledge. If you want really fast you take a library (which would also make sure to optimize allocations heavily).

[0]: https://pkg.go.dev/go.uber.org/zap

[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/log

And finally for structured logging: https://github.com/uber-go/zap

For logging: I recommend using Uber Zap https://github.com/uber-go/zap It will log stack backtraces and makes it super easy to debug errors when deployed. I typically log in the business logic and not below. And log at the entry for failures to start the system. Maybe not necessary for this example, but it’s an essential piece of any API backend.