turbo VS reactor

Supermemory has three main modules, managed by turborepo:

From a structural viewpoint, we use a monorepo (Turborepo) to manage packages, even though we currently have only one Next.js app. We chose this setup because it prepares us for future developments, which will include additional apps. This arrangement helps keep the packages well-separated and self-contained.

# src Dockerfile: https://github.com/vercel/turbo/blob/main/examples/with-docker/apps/web/Dockerfile FROM node:18-alpine AS alpine # setup pnpm on the alpine base FROM alpine as base ENV PNPM_HOME="/pnpm" ENV PATH="$PNPM_HOME:$PATH" RUN corepack enable RUN pnpm install turbo --global FROM base AS builder # Check https://github.com/nodejs/docker-node/tree/b4117f9333da4138b03a546ec926ef50a31506c3#nodealpine to understand why libc6-compat might be needed. RUN apk add --no-cache libc6-compat RUN apk update # Set working directory WORKDIR /app COPY . . RUN turbo prune --scope=web --docker # Add lockfile and package.json's of isolated subworkspace FROM base AS installer RUN apk add --no-cache libc6-compat RUN apk update WORKDIR /app # First install the dependencies (as they change less often) COPY .gitignore .gitignore COPY --from=builder /app/out/json/ . COPY --from=builder /app/out/pnpm-lock.yaml ./pnpm-lock.yaml COPY --from=builder /app/out/pnpm-workspace.yaml ./pnpm-workspace.yaml RUN pnpm install # Build the project COPY --from=builder /app/out/full/ . COPY turbo.json turbo.json RUN turbo run build --filter=web # use alpine as the thinest image FROM alpine AS runner WORKDIR /app # Don't run production as root RUN addgroup --system --gid 1001 nodejs RUN adduser --system --uid 1001 nextjs USER nextjs COPY --from=installer /app/apps/web/next.config.js . COPY --from=installer /app/apps/web/package.json . # Automatically leverage output traces to reduce image size # https://nextjs.org/docs/advanced-features/output-file-tracing COPY --from=installer --chown=nextjs:nodejs /app/apps/web/.next/standalone ./ COPY --from=installer --chown=nextjs:nodejs /app/apps/web/.next/static ./apps/web/.next/static COPY --from=installer --chown=nextjs:nodejs /app/apps/web/public ./apps/web/public CMD node apps/web/server.js

Following this example: https://github.com/vercel/turbo/tree/main/examples/with-docker/apps/web. Except I'm using pnpm. Edit Reddit Codeblocks are horrible and keeps removing all formatting.

The Dockerfile might seem a bit complicated (it is), but the reason for that is mostly just turborepo and the need for good caching. Realistically, you will only need to change the last line, if at all. It is based on this awesome Github Issue.

PURISTA is organized in a monorepo. During the development and build process, Turbo is used to execute different tasks and steps on multiple packages with one command.

Turbo repo

Previously we mapped each Vercel project to a single Supabase project. With this release, we're introducing the concept of project 'Connections'. Supabase projects can have an unlimited number of Vercel Connections. This is especially useful for monorepos using Turborepo.

One detail I enjoy from this post is that sometimes you can just call a CLI[0]. It's easy to spend a lot of time figuring out how to expose some Rust/C code as a library for your language, but I like the simplicity of just compiling, shipping the binary and then calling it as a subprocess.

Yes, there's overhead in starting a new process to "just call a function", but I think this approach is still underutilized.

[0]: https://github.com/vercel/turbo/blob/c0ee0dea7388d1081512c93...

I'd love to see this approach make more headway in the Django community. Based on the last DjangoCon it seems like the community is coalescing around HTMX.

This tool does play very nicely with Django's templating engine; you can just have HTMX re-render a particular template block on the server, and send down that updated block. The migration path is quite clean; you just wrap your "HTMX-updated" template block in a `hx-post` div.

Having not gone too deep on HTMX, I'm interested in folks' thoughts on where it's lacking vs. LiveView and Hotwire. One area I can see is performance; Elixir is going to be faster than Django, and so if you're trying to handle high session counts over websockets. But the impression I get is that HTMX is a bit more light-weight, so I'm wondering if there's usecases that can't be met with it vs. LiveView.

Other Django libraries that haven't quite seen as much uptake:

We have https://github.com/edelvalle/reactor, and a port of Hotwire: https://github.com/hotwire-django but both of these don't seem to have much adoption (yet!).

Thank you for posting those, I wanted to post them but I don't comment often (). Wanted to chip in another contemporary: edelvalle/reactor, which is inspired by LiveView[0].

[0]: https://github.com/edelvalle/reactor

I am using Hotwire for a project, and I'm learning Elixir and Phoenix on the side. Finding edelvalle/reactor was immediately helpful to me though, because I cut my teeth on Python/Django, so reading a Python reference implementation helps me learn nuts and bolts of libraries, faster. (so, I figure that this might help someone else grok how these approaches work.)

If this sounds like a barebones version of notable frameworks like Elixir's Phoenix LiveView, Rails's StimulusReflex or Hotwire Turbo, PHP's LiveWire, Django's Reactor... well, you're right! (Bonus: my colleague @jgaskins built a LiveView clone for Crystal)

Reactor

Reactor is a LiveView library for Django. It enables you to do something similar to Phoenix LiveView using Django Channels.

It looks a bit similar to Elixir Live View. Or similar in Django https://github.com/edelvalle/reactor, there are a couple of libraries.

Django does: https://github.com/edelvalle/reactor