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>
72 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
72 lines
2.1 KiB
Markdown
# 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
|
|
|
|
## Links
|
|
|
|
* [Chi Router GitHub](https://github.com/go-chi/chi)
|
|
* [Chi Documentation](https://go-chi.io/#/)
|
|
* [Gorilla Mux](https://github.com/gorilla/mux)
|
|
* [Gin Web Framework](https://github.com/gin-gonic/gin) |