Hacker News Reader

Comment by itake | Hacker News Reader

Where do you see that "pages seems to be on the way out"? I use pages for a few projects...

The migration guide contains this:

> Workers will receive the focus of Cloudflare's development efforts going forwards, so we therefore are recommending using Cloudflare Workers over Cloudflare Pages for any new projects

https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/static-assets/migr...

I didn't find it hard to migrate. Pages are workers, so might as well just use a worker.

It's hard if you don't use a JavaScript based SSG, well I didn't find how to do it with Hugo so I'll stay in cloudfare pages

Generate the files locally and then push them to the worker? Even with a JS based SSG that's the only way to do it and the difference between worker and pages. (workers have no build step)

https://gohugo.io/host-and-deploy/host-on-cloudflare/

https://discourse.gohugo.io/t/hugo-support-in-cloudflare-wor...

https://discourse.gohugo.io/t/hosting-a-hugo-site-on-a-cloud...

Just to note because I was confused by this:

I was under the impression that workers are just lambda functions, and therefore would fall under different billing rules than pages which serve static files (with unlimited bandwidth).

But workers apparently have a 'Static Assets' feature that just serves static assets (like pages) and comes with free unlimited requests, unlike worker function invocations, so as you say it seems to be essentially the same as pages.

https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/static-assets/

What I meant the same as worker, is that under the hood, pages are just workers. The Static Assets feature was probably added because the by-request billing wouldn't make any sense for static assets.

CF used to encouraged people to move to Workers instead of using Pages. They recently removed the message in their landing page that said so (just checked, you could visit Wayback Machine to verify), so I guess Pages will still be available anyway. Btw the best thing that Pages gives out is allowing people to use different domain from another domain registry when Workers force user move their domain to CF.

Workers require you to use CF as a domain registry? Where is that written and what possible reason do they give for it? That's quite an imposition.

Not the domain registry but CF wants to manage the DNS to make it work. If you do not want them to manage your DNS and want to work by simply pointing your CNAME, they ask you start with their business plan ($250 / per month)

Right, but that's not the same thing and is intrinsic to how CF works - routing DNS requests from different areas to different IPs. Is there any good reason not to just let them serve your DNS if they're serving your website?

(will they accept a delegated subdomain?)

They don't accept delegated subdomains, at least not for .net and .com domains (I haven't tried others).

I don't see how it's "intrinsic to how CF works" that they need to host your DNS records, especially when they don't require it on more expensive plans.

That being said, I don't mind them hosting my DNS records, but it would have been nice if they supported importing zone files from Azure DNS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com