Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Blog post comparing lb-next to other frameworks #630

Closed
crandmck opened this issue Oct 9, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Blog post comparing lb-next to other frameworks #630

crandmck opened this issue Oct 9, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@crandmck
Copy link
Contributor

crandmck commented Oct 9, 2017

At some point (closer to GA #details of architecture and implementation have been fleshed out), it would be nice to have a blog on how LB4 compares with other frameworks such as NestJS. As well, consider frameworks summarized in http://loopback.io/resources/#compare.

In Slack, Raymond stated:
My take is that NestJS handles incoming requests, as Express ++
LoopBack 4 is Express ++ & Integration/Composition for API/microservices
The key differentiator is that LB deals with API implementation/composition with backend systems
LB connects the dots between accepting api requests and interacting with existing resources
See Crafting LB 4 for more info. The right half of the 1st diagram is what NestJS is missing.

@hbakhtiyor
Copy link

would be nice to see the comparison

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Jul 23, 2018

I think a blog post like this can be published soon after the GA is released, it's not necessary to include it in GA scope. @raymondfeng @dhmlau please let me know if you disagree.

@bajtos bajtos added post-GA and removed LB4 GA labels Jul 23, 2018
@dhmlau dhmlau removed the non-DP3 label Aug 23, 2018
@dhmlau dhmlau removed the post-GA label Nov 2, 2018
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Oct 28, 2019

This issue has been marked stale because it has not seen activity within six months. If you believe this to be in error, please contact one of the code owners, listed in the CODEOWNERS file at the top-level of this repository. This issue will be closed within 30 days of being stale.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Oct 28, 2019
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Nov 27, 2019

This issue has been closed due to continued inactivity. Thank you for your understanding. If you believe this to be in error, please contact one of the code owners, listed in the CODEOWNERS file at the top-level of this repository.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants