Most of the coverage about Express on NodeUp was positive. In fact, I don't think a single negative thing was said about Express that was not about Connect.
We tried very hard to get you or one of the other contributors to Express on the show but you declined. We've not trying to slander or spread FUD about your library, we tried to have someone represent it fully, nobody was willing, so we covered as much as best we could early and that was almost entirely positive, then later in the show when we talked about "middleware" people stated their opinions about Connect, mostly in relation to the decisions they made when writing their framework. It's a little ridiculous to throw around words like FUD without having actually listened to the show and having declined from participating in it. -Mikeal On Apr 19, 2012, at April 19, 20128:55 PM, tjholowaychuk wrote: > It's fine to disagree, nothing is perfect, but spreading FUD and being all > angry about things isn't a great approach. I didn't listen to the show, but > from what I gather that's how things went down. Some of the middleware really > do try and do far too much, namely the auth libs but well over half the > modules in npm are not too great so it's not *just* a connect thing. Also I'm > all for trying to point-point use-cases, but unless there's really good > clarify for those I would rather have a more "flexible" option. Tons of > people have done things with Connect/Express that I never anticipated, and > without the modularity they would not have been able to do those things. If > they become common-place enough then I try to move those things in or improve > upon them. > > Like I've mentioned before it's certainly not a be-all end-all solution, but > its gotten to the point where I pretty much ignore freenode/this > list/nodeup/etc just because everyone gets so worked up about things. It's > just code, if people end having bad experiences with these libs (and some > people definitely do) they'll move on to something else, and we have plenty > of modules to offer those people. Lots of people really like the current > system which is why I'm in no huge rush to change things, I have long-term > changes I want to make but we use these every day and they're usually pretty > minor things. > > On Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:18:51 UTC-7, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2012, at April 16, 201211:13 AM, Tim Caswell wrote: > >> I laughed at the part where Mikeal says that connect doesn't deserve to >> exist. I agree that database connectors shouldn't be packaged (primarily) >> as middleware layers, but remember the reason I designed connect in the >> first place. There were several competing http frameworks that were >> duplicating the same logic over and over with zero code reuse or sharing. > > There is still zero re-use between frameworks using connect. flatiron has a > wrapper for connect middleware but none of the other frameworks support > connect. > >> >> So what's better? How can someone write an http-auth library that >> integrates with any node http server? Also what about a more generic plugin >> system for node in general where plugins can provide API services and >> consume other services? https://github.com/c9/architect > > I think that, the framework should provide a place for you to put a handler > that "does auth". This should be a function that takes a callback. The > framework should probably instrument some kind of buffering while you do this. > > This might seem like more work, finding each use case and providing API, > rather than having a more generic plugin system, but it also means that some > handles can buffer incoming data and some might not by design. It also means > that is one times out the framework knows exactly what failed. > >> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM, NodeUp <[email protected]> wrote: >> We recorded a special framework author throwdown for NodeUp with the >> authors of Geddy (http://geddyjs.org), Tako (https://github.com/mikeal/ >> tako), Flatiron (http://flatironjs.org) and SocketStream (https:// >> github.com/socketstream/socketstream). >> >> If you're interested you can listen to it here, http://nodeup.com/seventeen. >> >> -- >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >> Posting guidelines: >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en >> >> >> -- >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >> Posting guidelines: >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en > > > -- > Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ > Posting guidelines: > https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "nodejs" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
