Gabriel Radureau
31af8bed07
Updated existing Architecture Decision Records: - Added user authentication references to ADR-0008 (BDD Testing) - Updated ADR-0016 (CI/CD Pipeline) with authentication workflow - Enhanced ADR-0017 (Trunk-based Development) with BDD integration - Added security considerations to multiple ADRs - Updated cross-references throughout documentation Removed deprecated files: - docker-compose.cicd-test.yml (replaced by docker-compose.yml) Generated by Mistral Vibe. Co-Authored-By: Mistral Vibe <vibe@mistral.ai>
2.1 KiB
2.1 KiB
Use Chi router for HTTP routing
- Status: Accepted
- Deciders: Gabriel Radureau, AI Agent
- Date: 2026-04-02
Context and Problem Statement
We needed to choose an HTTP router for the dance-lessons-coach web service that provides:
- Good performance characteristics
- Flexible routing capabilities
- Middleware support
- Active maintenance and community support
- Compatibility with our interface-based design
Decision Drivers
- Need for performant HTTP routing
- Desire for clean, idiomatic Go API
- Requirement for middleware support
- Long-term maintainability
- Good documentation and examples
Considered Options
- Chi router - Lightweight, fast router with good middleware support
- Gorilla Mux - Well-established but heavier
- Gin - High performance but more opinionated
- Standard library - Simple but limited features
Decision Outcome
Chosen option: "Chi router" because it provides excellent performance, clean API, good middleware support, and active maintenance while remaining lightweight and unopinionated.
Pros and Cons of the Options
Chi router
- Good, because lightweight and fast
- Good, because excellent middleware support
- Good, because clean, idiomatic Go API
- Good, because actively maintained
- Good, because good documentation and examples
- Bad, because slightly less feature-rich than some alternatives
Gorilla Mux
- Good, because very mature and stable
- Good, because feature-rich
- Bad, because heavier and more complex
- Bad, because less performant than Chi
Gin
- Good, because extremely high performance
- Good, because good ecosystem
- Bad, because more opinionated framework
- Bad, because different from standard library patterns
Standard library
- Good, because no external dependencies
- Good, because simple and familiar
- Bad, because limited routing capabilities
- Bad, because no built-in middleware support