IMO, this article itself is indeed indicating there is an important feature not fulfilled by the standard package. It is asking people to write their own routers indirectly, thus, leading to the current situation (e.g: more routers). There is a much better guide here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6564558/wildcards-in-the-pattern-for-http-handlefunc. Judging the fact that I need to roll out my own router (which is also a pain), it's much better for me to spend the resources on Gorilla/mux that has the collective contribution effect from its contributors pool. Hopefully the developer in the standard package can see this and look into it (We had enough with Python2 vs Python3 incident already).
p/s: I'm a new comer (transition from C and Python) to Go but due to the fact that I need just a simple dynamic parameter url feature that the standard package couldn't offer, it led me into researching about this "router" markets which is kind of disappointing from both personal and commercial projects perspectives. (So much time wasted studying these router studies.) Kean On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 6:02:37 AM UTC+8, Axel Wagner wrote: > > Hey gophers, > > in an attempt to rein in the HTTP router epidemic, I tried writing down a) > why I think *any* router/muxer might not be a good thing to use (much > less write) and b) what I consider good, practical advice on how to route > requests instead. It's not rocket science or especially novel, but I wanted > to provide more useful advice than just saying "just use net/http" and > haven't seen that a lot previously. > > Feedback is welcome :) > http://blog.merovius.de/2017/06/18/how-not-to-use-an-http-router.html > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
