Did they mention anywhere why they decided to write their own proxy instead of using Traefik or something else battle tested?
There are some context about why they switched and decided to roll their own, from the PR.
Man, I've been there where you wish third party software had some feature but writing your own is WORST thing you can do for a company 9/10 times. My current company is dealing with massive tech debt because of all this homegrown software.
It looks to me that they were already using Traefik, and Traefik does indeed support the feature they wished to have.
Apparently they also got rid of support for healthchecks, which all by itself would be expected to require an extensive justification. But no.
I would love to hear why the people behind this decision felt that Traefik's support for dynamic route configuration wasn't suited to configure routes dynamically.
I would also love to hear the rationale behind the decision to invest their time rolling their own reverse proxy instead of just doing docker run on one of the many production-grade reverse proxies readily available.
I don't know. This has vibes of spending months in a development project to avoid spending hours reading a manual.
The did not remove support for healthchecks. They're directly mentioned in the README.
> It will immediately begin running HTTP health checks to ensure it's reachable and working and, as soon as those health checks succeed, will start routing traffic to it.
I don't know. This has vibes of doing little to no research and then shit-talking a product.
But I don't think they ever published comparisons to anything else than Traefik