I read this exact comment with I would say completely the same words several times in X and I would bet my money it's LLM generated by someone who has not even tried both the tools. This AI slop even in the site like this without direct monetisation implications from fake engagement is making me sick...

Finally... We had two days without large outage, I started to worry a little

This is why I go to hackernews every day <3

If you finally decided to support proper server-side middleware, why is there still a limitation for only one middleware function and not a chain of middleewares as every other sane server implementation offers?

Consider middleware.ts as a root middleware. Nothing is stopping you from creating your own chain (which is trivial) in there. I mean, that would eventually work the same if nextjs implemented that feature — there would be a root somewhere.

That doesn't answer parent's question.

People expect "middleware" to mean a certain thing and work a certain way.

  middleware = fn(req) → next(req).

express/koa give you the use() chain. next.js gives you one root, but nothing stops you from chaining yourself. same semantics, just manual wiring.

  type mw = (req: Request, next: () => Response) => Response;
  
  const logger: mw = (req, next) => {
  console.log(req.url);
  return next();

};

  const auth: mw = (req, next) => {
    if (!req.headers.get("x-auth")) return new   Response("forbidden", { status: 403 });
    return next();
  };
  
  function chain(mws: mw[]) {
    return (req: Request) =>
      mws.reduceRight((next, mw) => () => mw(req, next), () => new Response("ok"))();
  }
  
  export function middleware(req: Request) {
    return chain([logger, auth])(req);
  }

root is given, chain is trivial. that’s middleware.

Nothing trivial about that implementation in my mind - need to keep track of where middleware is registered, reduceRight is non obvious.

I expect these things to be standardized by the framework and all the sharp edges filed off - thats why I go to a framework in the first place.

The reduceRight is just a bit of cute FP code golf. All it’s saying is that chaining an empty list of middleware yields an ‘OK’ response, and that the first middleware is passed a function which, when called, executes the remaining middleware chain, and so on. It would be obvious enough if written out as a for loop, or via direct recursion.

(My username has never been more appropriate!)

The last hop showed in the BGP route is AS60068 (cdn77) which is a Czech company with global physical network. It does not mean the data are going through GB, it's not that easy.

$ whois AS60068 [...] organisation: ORG-DL201-RIPE org-name: Datacamp Limited country: GB org-type: LIR address: 207 Regent Street address: W1B 3HH address: London [...]

In the era of relatively complicated company ownership structures (especially in a capital heavy business such as Datacamp), the company on the whois does have the same level of meaning as you seem to expect it to.

207 Regent Street, it's a relatively well known virtual office type address, I would be shocked to learn that there were any datacamp employees at that address)

Virtual office addresses don't help to make it better.

I have no doubts that V8 has a rich test suites - including tests for the absolute value function.

But then a production optimized build apparently contains different code? This sounds to me like a system flaw

I believe in reality it's a bit more complicated

CDNs do not choose datacenters for users based on a geographic distance. The number one metric is latency but latency != physical distance. Second metric is optimizations of price of data transfer between peers and IXPs which results in very dynamic routing rules. Then consider also network/software hickups/maintanance and distribution of datacenters' load...

For people without Twitter/X account, this is a summary as a single post https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1850658084491874555.html

Glad you did this. Thanks.

Wow I hear for the first time that some TLD registrar would explicitelly allow zone transfer of the whole zone... talking about the Swedish TLD mentioned in the article.

This really works

dig @zonedata.iis.se se axfr

Could you apply here the Kerckhoffs's principle which says that security should not be based on secrecy? I know the original principle speaks about encryption but why should not it apply here aswell? Organisation should be secure by design and not by hoping nobody discovers all its assets. That being said maybe the mentioned Swedish approach to have the TLD zone public makes sense?