Hacker News Reader

Comment by heavensteeth | Hacker News Reader

I tried messing with Caddy a little while ago and this was my experience.

I'm sure being able to configure it in a million different languages conveniences someone, but [un]official docs documenting things in a format I don't use, and having to figure out what the option is in the format I do use, was immediately annoying.

View on HN

I agree that the Caddy team should hide all of the config adapters, the powerful JSON configs, and just focus on Caddyfile. I was extremely skeptical that I could convert 100+ Nginx Plus configs over to Caddyfile, but it was worth it. I moved 10k lines of Nginx config down to 1000 lines of Caddyfile. It is a big change, no question, but I've spent so much time on Nginx, Nginx Plus, Tengine, new forks, and moving away is the only sensible answer I could land on.

Caddy maintainer here; hiding things doesn't make sense, some people do need to see that information, namely users of the API who perform scripted config changes on their running servers. The Caddyfile is pretty up-front-and-center, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

We have many large integrators who rely on the JSON format and the JSON API quite heavily.

I also understand the burden of moving to a new server stack. It's a lot to swallow and a new way of thinking about things!

Anyway, we only mention config adapters in a few places in our docs: we automate our JSON docs, which are at the heart of Caddy, and we try to invest considerable effort to document the only official config adapter format: the Caddyfile.

Caddy maintainer here, I don't understand what you mean. What format are you talking about? We definitely push everyone to use the Caddyfile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com