Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 10, 2022. It is now read-only.

Multiple server impls may be needed #29

Open
paullewis opened this issue Nov 3, 2015 · 5 comments
Open

Multiple server impls may be needed #29

paullewis opened this issue Nov 3, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@paullewis
Copy link

Mainly PHP. My assumption (and I think it'd be good to have data around this) is that many people are on shared architectures where PHP is the predominant env.

@Garbee
Copy link

Garbee commented Nov 7, 2015

Any existing ideas on how this would be structured in the repository? I would love to help here if I could.

@addyosmani
Copy link
Contributor

We're documenting the server-side architecture as part of #12 and should have a version nailed down soon that can be re-implemented in PHP. I think ideally it would be awesome to start to see derivative implementations in diff lang flavours for folks that can't use Node for their backend.

@addyosmani
Copy link
Contributor

So we've now published the architecture blog posts. Imo, it could be neat for us to encourage folks to fork this repo and try to replace the Express based backend with their own. We could then link out to those implementations. Only concern with including the source in this repo is it might make maintainance and bug tracking a little tricker.

@Garbee
Copy link

Garbee commented Nov 24, 2015

I agree with the maintenance part for the code itself. The other main problem is, things like PHP have numerous ✖️ numerous ways of handling things. So, if the repo becomes big in that world for some reason, there will be many issues asking for different packages to be used. I think this repo is clean enough that developers should be able to look and refactor into Ruby or PHP on their own.

@gauntface
Copy link

Discussing this with some of the tech writers it sounds like we are intending to document (on a high level) what possible options exist for each language / server architecture. Doing this on WebFundamentals may have the added bonus of people contributing to list to improve it over time.

In the mean time I'm inclined to say close this bug, but happy if others disagree.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants